BD at 2000
\ The
b hi din
a ot.
BE ZOOMgiCa|
2 am
eG; fiys #4
rey «. j >>
if oma (iit i? ,
iTS
puaaaal
a
The
Bulletin
Zoological
Nomenclature
HG. PNG The 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
clo The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London, SW7 5BD, U.K.
ISSN 0007-5167
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
cy ll She
\jsarluoish Mange ttf,
renee? Wear eSB
qaionIno lrotolie
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notices . ;
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its y publications
Addresses of members of the Commission
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals.
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 .
Applications
Eudendrium arbuscula Wright, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation of
the specific name. A.C. Marques & W. Vervoort . nil
AUGOCHLORINI Moure, 1943 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): pees precedence over
OXYSTOGLOSSINI Schrottky, 1909. M.S. Engel sy ts
Strongylogaster Dahlbom, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): See conservation is
the designation of Tenthredo multifasciata Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 as the type
species. S.M. Blank, A. Taeger & T. Naito . :
Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): aoe eonsenvation of the
specific name. S.O. Shattuck, S.D. Porter & D.P. Wojcik gt
NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, [1845] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): eas precedente over
ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835. M.A. Solis ;
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. vanes Bleeker,
1846. H.H. Ng, Y.Y. Goh, P.K.L. Ng & J. Dodson
Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): ane conservation,
and Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently Megalotragus kattwinkeli):
proposed conservation of the specific name. A.W. Gentry & A. Gentry .
Comments
On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Strombidium gyrans Stokes,
1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans) and Strobilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida). C.W. Heckman.
Haminoea, Haminaea or Haminea (Mollusca, Ganttoneda):a notes ead Eetarente 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 é
On the proposed conservation of Hydrobia ayaa 1821 (Mollusca, eneateiey
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). 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 . PE Aes ae ki, 8 eo a Gt ep a | doe wee
48
49
56
Il Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio sylvanus Esper,
[1777] (currently Ochlodes venata or Augiades sylvanus; Insecta, eaiaaeioe:
A.L. Devyatkin F
On the proposed designation of Megsanitaderh, poet houlencen in easicn
1881 as the type species of Jguanodon Mantell, 1825, and proposed designation of
a lectotype (Reptilia, Ornithischia). D. Norman . :
On the proposed conservation of the names Hydrosaurus onl Gray, 1838 and
Varanus panoptes Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the designation of a neotype
for H. gouldii. R.T. Hoser; A. Gentry .
On the proposed conservation of Coluber “ete Blainville, 1935 and Bion
sirtalis tetrataenia Cope in Yarrow, 1875 (currently Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis
and 7. s. tetrataenia; Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the sub-
specific names by the designation of a neotype for T. s. infernalis. H.M. Smith .
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. N. Szaboles; A. Mones .
On the proposed conservation of LORISIDAE Gray, 1821 and GALAGIDAE 2 Grey, 1825
(Mammalia, Primates) as the correct original spellings. D.W. Yalden .
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 1913. Pila Réding, 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. apt
OPINION 1914. Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842, Geopeltis Regteren Alten, "1949,
Geoteuthis Minster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia Quenstedt,
1839, Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 (Mollusca, Coleo-
idea): conserved, and the specific name of Belemnoteuthis (sic) montefiorei
Buckman, 1880: conserved . . .
OPINION 1915. Suchonella Spizharsky, 1937 Gacutaeen iOstciedla): Suchinella
typica Spizharsky, 1939 designated as the type species . ?
OPINION 1916. BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera): ee
emended to BRACHYPTERAINAE, So removing the homonymy with BRACHYPTERINAE
Erichson, [1845] (Insecta, Coleoptera); KATERETIDAE Erichson in Agassiz, [1846]:
given precedence over BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson . ;
OPINION 1917. Papilio camillus Fabricius, 1781 (eurreatly Gyreass camillies)
and Limenitis reducta se ae 1901 Ao sake mi acy specific names
conserved .
OPINION 1918. MELOIDAE Gyllenhal, ‘1810 and NEMOGNATHINAE Castelnau, 1340
(Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over HORUDAE Latreille, 1802 .
OPINION 1919. Polyrhachis Smith, 1857 (Insecta, Hye given precedence
over Myrma Billberg, 1820 . :
OPINION 1920. Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, ‘Anura) ae ene
Smith, 1849 designated as the type species . :
OPINION 1921. PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931, CACOSTERNINAE wou, 1931 and
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura): given precedence over
HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffmann, 1878, and PHRYNOBATRACHINAE: not given se
Over PETROPEDETINAE . .
OPINION 1922. Loris E. Geoffroy Sete Enleine 1796 vem ipa
conserved, and correction made to the entry for Choloepus Iliger, 1811 (Xenar-
thra) on the Official List . ES i RN te Oe ;
Information and instructions for authors .
63
65
66
71
72
73
74
77
81
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
Notices . 5 ;
The International Gods oF Zopldpic’l Meiienclature :
General Article
Centralized access to newly published zoological names. J. Howcroft & J. Thorne .
Applications
Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 1965 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conserva-
tion of the specific name. D.S. Brown, F. Naggs & V.R. Southgate.
Sphaerius Waltl, 1838 and sSPHAERIUSIDAE Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, @hlenpiaesi
proposed conservation by the partial revocation of Opinion 1331. M.A. Jach.
Blennocampa Hartig, 1837, Cryptocampus Hartig, 1837, Taxonus Hartig, 1837,
Ametastegia 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 . .
Macrophya Dahlbom, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed desienation oe Ten-
thredo montana 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.
Apis proava Menge, 1856 (currently Electrapis proava; Insecta, Eiymenepioey:
proposed conservation by designation of a neotype. M.S. Engel .
Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826 and Callorhinus Gray, 1859 (Mammalia, Paisipedta):
proposed conservation by the designation of Phoca pusilla Schreber, [1775] as the
type species of Arctocephalus; and Otaria Péron, 1816 and Eumetopias Gill, 1866:
proposed conservation by the designation of Phoca leonina Molina, 1782 as the
type species of Otaria. A.L. Gardner & C.B. Robbins .
Comments
On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Strombidium gyrans Stokes,
1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans) and Strobilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida). W. Foissner .
On the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Fiapinani, 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 HyDROBINA 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. ie: F:
Giusti, G. Manganelli & M. Bodon .
On the proposed precedence of the specific name af C DnB Paher Cane 1892 over
that of Crotalus exsul Garman, 1884 (Reptilia, Serpentes). S.A. Minton; R.E.
Olson; W.W. Tanner; R.W. ea B.H. Brattstrom; A. Ramirez-Bautista &
J.L. Espinal . ; Bae
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 1923. Trachelocerca Ehrenberg (Ciliophora): authorship conserved as
Ehrenberg (1840), and Vibrio sagitta Miller, 1786 fixed as the type species.
OPINION 1924. Helix draparnaudi Beck, 1837 (currently Oxychilus draparnaudi;
Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved. . .
OPINION 1925. Turrilites gravesianus d’Orbigny, 1842 Gasenay Piypaturrilites
gravesianus; Mollusca, Ammonoidea): specific name conserved and a replacement
lectotype designated; Turrilites tuberculatus Bosc, are SK Aa Hypoturrilites
tuberculatus): placed on the Official List . ; dont an
It
105
107
108
113
117
121
128
134
136
143
148
154
IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
OPINION 1926. DAsypopipAE Bérner, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): spelling
emended to DASYPODAIDAE, so removing the homonymy with DASYPODIDAE Gray,
1821 (Mammalia, Xenarthra) . . .
OPINION 1927. Lactura Walker, 1854 Gnsecta, Lepidoptera): conserved, ean the
specific name of Eustixis pupula Hiibner, [1831] (currently Lactura pupula):
conserved. . SES he as bare eins oll SEINE eee kotha rs hare
OPINION 1928. Waneendconcha Chao, 1927 and Gruntoconcha pier ae 1995
(Brachiopoda): conserved . ; stelsAeniies:
OPINION 1929. Cnemidophorus neomexicanus eye & Feit: 1952 (Reptilia,
Squamata): specific name conserved . steené: ash4 ATED 51 Re
Information and instructions for authors .
Notices . : t
The International Code of Pvelawical Nomenelanare :
Call for nominations for new members of the inernatenal eoumcacte on
Zoological Nomenclature .
Applications
Leucocytozoon (Protista, Haemosporida): proposed adoption of Berestneff, 1904 as
the author and of Leukocytozoen danilewskyi Ziemann, 1898 as the type sins
G. Valkitnas.
Gnomulus Thorell, 1390 (Asachandan Opiliones): pronosed desieaation. ot G. sumat-
ranus Thorell, 1891 as the type species. P.J. Schwendinger & J. Martens.
Diastylis Say, 1818 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed designation of Cuma rathkii
Kroyer, 1841 as the type species. S. Gerken.
Tanaecia coelebs Corbet, 1941 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): prbpostd Edusenenon on the
specific name. T. Yokochi.
Drosophila rufifrons Loew, 1873 and: D. Dee 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. Bachli . fate CET AU .0 Re RY ee
Vespertilio pipistrellus Scumeber: 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently
Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia, Chiroptera): proposed
designation of neotypes. G. Jones & E.M. Barratt . ADAG GERM e lid
Comments
On the proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and Paludina
desmarestii Prévost, 1821 as the respective type species of Euchilus Sandberger,
1870 and Stalioa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). P. Bouchet .
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 HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). T. Wilke, G.M. Davis & G. Rosenberg . 4
On the proposed conservation of Disparalona sal 1968 (Crustacea, Brae
opoda). W. Hollwedel . aes
On the proposed conservation of Phy oe Bejean, 1835 (ee Coleoptera).
E. Colonnelli; M.A. Alonso Zarazaga & C.H.C. Lyal; H. Silfverberg .
AUGOCHLORINI Beebe, 1925 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): corrected authorship and date
(not Moure, 1943). M.S. Engel. .
156
158
160
162
164
165
166
167
168
171
174
177
179
182
187
187
191
191
198
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972
(Insecta, Hymenoptera). W.R. Tschinkel; E.O. Wilson; S.W. Taber; $.B. Vinson.
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 SA for H. ee
(Bleeker, 1846). I.M. Kerzhner; M.J.P. van Oijen ae
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 .
OPINION 1931. Campeloma Pvtnetire! 1819 (Mollusca, Gavieaende sae
OPINION 1932. Holospira Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Cylindrella
goldfussi Menke, 1847 designated as the type species :
OPINION 1933. Androctonus caucasicus Nordmann, 1840 (curently Mexobuitis
caucasicus; Arachnida, Scorpiones): specific name conserved ; 4
OPINION 1934. Paruroctonus Werner, 1934 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): tpannorved
OPINION 1935. Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis;
Insecta, Homoptera): specific name conserved .
OPINION 1936. Thamnotettix nigropictus Stal, 1870 Gaen, Nephotenti nigro-
pictus; Insecta, Homoptera): specific name conserved .
OPINION 1937. Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1860 (currently iGinenororical propinqua;
Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name conserved .
OPINION 1938. Musca rosae Fabricius, 1794 (currently Psila c or Chane hie rosae;
Insecta, Diptera): specific name conserved ;
OPINION 1939. Trigonocephalus pulcher Peters, 1862 Gren Boiieans chen
Bothriechis pulcher or Bothriopsis pulchra; Reptilia, Serpentes): defined by the
holotype, and not a neotype; Bothrops a Freire Lascano, 1991: specific
name placed on the Official List .
OPINION 1940. Hoplocephalus vestigiatus De Vis; "1884 (Reptilia, Serpentes): oe
name placed on the Official List .
OPINION 1941. Australopithecus awe fotcnsont 1978 (Mammalia, Primates):
specific name conserved : ; te a3 Bg eh Seat
Notices . : ,
The Jnternational Code oF Gadlasieal eraergeen
Financial Report for 1998
Applications
Strongylus tetracanthus Mehlis, 1831 (currently Cyathostomum tetracanthum) and
C. catinatum Looss, 1900 (Nematoda): proposed conservation of usage by the
designation of a neotype for C. tetracanthum. L.M. Gibbons & J.R. Lichtenfels .
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. B. Herting, H.-P. Tschorsnig & J.E. O'Hara .
Hybognathus stramineus Cope, 1865 (currently Notropis stramineus; Oneieniyes.
Cypriniformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. R.M. Bailey .
Ichthyosaurus cornalianus Bassani, 1886 (currently Mixosaurus cornalianus; Reptilia,
Ichthyosauria): proposed designation of a neotype. W. Brinkmann.
Mystacina Gray, 1843, Chalinolobus Peters, 1866, M. tuberculata Gray, 1343 aa
Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844 (currently C. tuberculatus) (Mammalia,
Chiroptera): proposed conservation of usage of the names. H.G. Spencer & D.E.
Lee Sie ah
200
230
235
240
247
250
VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
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 .
Cervus gouazoubira Fischer, 1814 (currently Mazama gouazoubira; Mammalia,
Artiodactyla): proposed conservation as the correct original spelling. A.L.
Gardner abet Sy RD Ae
Comments
On the proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and Paludina
desmarestii Prévost, 1821 as the respective type species of Euchilus Sandberger,
1870 and Stalioa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). D. Kadolsky ‘
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 HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). R.A. Bank . $
On the proposed conservation of ee Sais Fee 1968 ioaetacee Branch
opoda). D. Fléssner . : i
On the proposed designation ae a See eae ioe edibaeeht a nemurus
(Valenciennes, 1840) (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) and H. sieboldii (Bleeker, 1846),
and of the lectotype of H. planiceps We epee: 1840) asa ne for H. flavus
(Bleeker, 1846). M. Kottelat .
On the proposed conservation of the Hethe: name ai Garam teriae Sprackland,
1991 (Reptilia, Squamata). H.G. misma R.G. lipid H.M. Smith &
P.D. Strimple
On the proposed suppression a all baer usages aa pencaic and istes names 3 nee
(Aves) by John Gould and others conventionally accepted as published in the
Proceedings of the Zoological Aaciew of London. M.D. Bruce & 1.A.W. McAllan;
R. Schodde & W.J. Bock
On the proposed conservation of usage ‘af 15 Pane Specific! names Bad on awitd
species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic
species. P. Grubb . Be isits)
Indexes, etc.
Authors in volume 56 (1999) j
Names placed on Official Lists and dence in ilaaes of the Commision published
in volume 56 (1999) .
Key Names in Applications and Corners published i in vol 56 (1999).
Information and instructions for authors . oh eibvt Se ECE
Publication dates and pagination of volume 56 (1999).
Instructions to binder .
Table of Contents of volume 56 (1999)
255
262
266
268
270
271
272
274
Te ENA NATURAL
0 alae M
Bulletin
Pe pical
Nomenclature
Ww Von
a Or *
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 S5BD, U.K. (Tel. 0171-938 9387)
(e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
(http://www.iczn.org)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President
Vice-President
Secretary-General
Executive Secretary
Members
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology)
Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca)
Prof D. J. Brothers
(South Africa; Hymenoptera)
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda)
DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer
(U.S.A.; Ichthyology)
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda)
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus
(Germany; Arachnology)
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea)
Secretariat
Prof A. Minelli (/taly)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.)
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)
Dr V. Mahnert
(Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
(Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa)
Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda)
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera)
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista)
Prof W.D.L.Ride(Australia; Mammalia)
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology)
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)
Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea)
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Prof S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999
| HISTORY MUSEL
-7 APR 1999
PURCHASED
ZOOLOGY LIBRA
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 56, part | (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 publi-
cation but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted.
Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to
send his contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as
possible.
(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises
mainly applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals,
resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed
amendments to the Code are also published for discussion.
Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an
audience wider than some small group of specialists.
(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 55, part 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 thoracica 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 Tjima, 1897 (Porifera, Hexactinellida): proposed designation of
S. glaber \jima, 1897 as the type species. (Case 3104). K.R. Tabachnick.
(5) Cetopirus Ranzani, 1817 (Crustacea, Cirripedia): proposed designation of
C. complanatus Mérch, 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 Schénherr, 1840 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation.
(Case 3107). C.H.C. Lyal & R.T. Thompson.
to
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
(8) Malaclemys littoralis rhizophorarum 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 (IUBS), and members are elected by secret
ballot of zoologists attending General Assemblies of IUBS or Congresses of its
associated bodies such as the International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary
Biology (ICSEB). Casual vacancies may be filled between Congresses. Nominations for
membership may be sent to the Commission Secretariat at any time.
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has one fundamental aim,
which is to provide ‘the maximum universality and continuity in the scientific names
of animals compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify all animals according
to taxonomic judgements’. The current (Third) Edition was published in 1985 by
the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the
Commission. A Fourth Edition is in course of preparation and will be published in
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 Works 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 Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
Prof D.J. BROTHERS Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Natal
Pietermaritzburg, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209 South Africa
Dr L.R.M. COCKS The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD,
U.K.
Dr H.G. COGGER c/o Australian Museum, 6 College Street Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000,
Australia
Prof C. DUPUIS Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
Dr W.N. ESCHMEYER Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden
Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118-4599, U.S.A. (Vice-President)
Mr D. HEPPELL RR4 S14-C1, Gower Point Road, Gibson’s Landing, B.C., VON 1V0, Canada
Dr Z. KABATA Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station,
Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5K6, Canada
Dr ILM. KERZHNER Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg
199034, Russia
Prof Dr O. KRAUS Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Martin-Luther-King-
Platz 3, D-2000 Hamburg 13, Germany (Councillor)
Dr P.T. LEHTINEN Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku,
SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland
Dr E. MACPHERSON Centro d’Estudios Avangats de Blanes (C.S.I.C.), Cami de Santa
Barbara s/n, 17300 Blanes, Girona, Spain
Dr V. MAHNERT Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Case postale 434, CH-1211 Genéve 6,
Switzerland
Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa
Postal 7172, 04263 Sao Paulo, Brazil
Prof S.F. MAWATARI Zoological Institute, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo
060, Japan
4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
Prof A. MINELLI Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121
Padova, Italy (President)
Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Kobenhayn, Denmark
Dr I.W.B. NYE c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.
(Councillor)
Dr L. PAPP Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Baross utca 13, H-1088 Budapest,
Hungary
Prof D.J. PATTERSON School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006,
Australia
Prof W.D.L. RIDE Department of Geology, The Australian National University, P.O. Box 4,
Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia (Councillor)
Prof J. M. SAVAGE Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral
Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A. (Councillor)
Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitét Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010
Graz, Austria ;
Prof D.X. SONG Institute of Zoology, Academia Sinica, 19 Zhongguancun Lu, Haitien, Beijing,
China
Dr P. STYS Department of Zoology, Charles University, Viniéna 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech
Republic
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Members
Prof S. Conway Morris (Chairman) (U.K.)
Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) (U.K.)
Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium)
Dr Keiji Baba (Japan)
Prof Per Brinck (Sweden)
Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa)
Prof J.H. Callomon (U.K.)
Dr N.R. Chalmers (U.K.)
Prof W.T. Chang (China)
Dr H.G. Cogger (Australia)
Dr P.F.S. Cornelius (U.K.)
The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook (U.K.)
Dr R.W. Crosskey (U.K.)
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. Oates (U.K.)
Dr E.P.F. Rose (U.K.)
Prof F.R. Schram (The Netherlands)
Dr G.B. White (U.K.)
Prof H.B. Whittington (U.K.)
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@nmnh.si.edu). The cost is £19 or $35 (including surface postage); members
of the American and European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are
offered the reduced price of £15 or $29. Payment (cheques made out to ‘ITZN’ or
‘AAZN’) should accompany orders or should follow if the order is made by
electronic means.
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was founded on
18 September 1895. In recognition of its Centenary a history of the development of
nomenclature since the 18th century and of the Commission has been published
entitled ‘Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995’ (ISBN 0 85301 005 6). It is 104
pages (250 x 174 mm) with 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists
who played a crucial part in the evolution of the system of animal nomenclature as
universally accepted today. The book contains a list of all the Commissioners from
1895 to 1995. The main text was written by R.V. Melville (former Secretary of the
Commission) and has been completed and updated following his death.
Copies may be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) or A.A.Z.N.,
Attn. Dr D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington,
D.C. 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: smithd@nmnh.si.edu).
The cost is £30 or $50 (including surface postage); members of the American and
European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of
£20 or $35. Payment (cheques made out to ‘ITZN’ or “AAZN’) should accompany
orders or should follow if the order is made by electronic means.
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
Muséum 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%) 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%). 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 modern 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
admissibility (nomenclatural availability). It was put forward with the following
wording:
“Article 11. 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.
(1i) 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 comments. 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 publication
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; (c) 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 staff 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 molluscan supraspecific new names published in
1960-1965. Their result elicited controversy (Edwards & Thorne, 1993; Bouchet &
Rocroi, 1993; Thorne & 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 11b [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 11b 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 Mollusca (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, spellings, 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 molluscan 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 |. (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 of publication sources and genus-group names omitted in ZR for the
period 1980-1992 (P = periodicals, NP = non-periodical publications)
Sources Names
P NP Total % P NP Total %
USSR 12 7 19 Meson a7 15 42 16.2
E. Europe 3 - 3 3.4 + ~ 4 ies)
USA 9 2 11 12.4. 21 28 49 18.8
W. Europe See O 18 PLOY IT) 20 37 14.2
Australia/NZ/Canada 3 - 3 3.4 7 - 7 2
Japan 2 2 4 4.5 3 7 10 3.8
China Sig l® 22 24.7 3 95 98 377
Other Asia 2 ~ 2 pi) 5 ~ 5 1.9
S. America 6 1 7 7.9 6 2 8 3.0
Total 48 41 89 L000. 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 Be.
Japan 102 10 9.8
China 395 98 24.8
Other Asia 29 5 17.2
S. America 40 8 20.0 ;
t
Total 2142 260 12.1
*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 78% 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
12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) 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-
tological 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
molluscan 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
difficulty 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 11b 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 is 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 taxonomists 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
molluscan 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 Gushengwuxue 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 I 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 1 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 (IAPT) 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. (IAPT Executive
Committee). 1998. Proposals to implement mandatory registration of new names. Taxon,
47(4): 899-904 (see also Biology International, 36: 34-36).
Bouchet, P. 1997. Inventorying the molluscan diversity of the world: what is our rate of
progress? The Veliger, 40(1): 1-11.
Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.P. 1992. Supraspecific names of molluscs: a quantitative review.
Malacologia, 34(1—-2): 75-86.
Bouchet, P. & Rocroi, J.P. 1993. The lottery of bibliographical databases: a reply to Edwards
& Thorne. Malacologia, 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. Malacologia, 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, ILM. & Starobogatoy, 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 Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
Case 3074
Eudendrium arbuscula Wright, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed
conservation of the specific name
Antonio C. Marques
Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciéncias e Letras de Ribeirao Preto, Universidade de
Sdo Paulo, Ay. Bandeirantes 3900, 14040-901, Ribeirdo Preto, SP, Brazil
(e-mail: marques@ffclrp.usp.br)
Willem Vervoort
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P.O. Box 9517, 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 Tubularia 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 £. wrightii
Hartlaub, 1905. Neither E. arbuscula (d’Orbigny) nor £. 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 Tubularia 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 arbuscula (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. arbuscula
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 different authors in the last 50 years are held by the Commission
Secretariat.
5. In order to conserve the specific name of Eudendrium arbuscula Wright, 1859,
we propose the suppression of E. arbuscula (d’Orbigny, 1846) and the maintenance of
validity of its junior homonym E. arbuscula Wright.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers:
(a) to suppress the name arbuscula 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 arbuscula Wright, 1859, as published in the
binomen Eudendrium arbuscula, 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 (1)(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 (1)(a) above;
(b) wrightii Hartlaub, 1905, as published in the binomen Eudendrium wrightii
(a junior objective synonym of Eudendrium arbuscula Wright, 1859).
References
Bedot, M. 1925. Matériaux pour servir a l’histoire des hydroides. 7e Période (1901 a 1910).
Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 32, supplement: 1-657.
Bromley, J.E.C. 1979. Preliminary checklist of marine fauna of Minas Basin and Minas
Channel. Proceedings of the Nova Scotian 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 und chilenischen Kiiste. In:
Fauna Chilensis, 3. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Supplement 6: 497-714.
Kramp, P.L. 1926. Occasional notes on Coelenterata. 1. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk
naturhistorisk Forening i Kobenhavn, 82: 241-247.
18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
Orbigny, A. d’. 1846. Zoophytes. Pp. 17-28 in: Voyage dans I’ Amérique méridionale, vol. 5,
part 4. Bertrand, Paris.
Ridley, S.O. 1881. Account of the zoological collections made during the survey of H.M.S.
Alert 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.)10: 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 SBD, 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, N.Y. 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 AUGOCHLORINI (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 Oxystoglossa
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 Augochiora as the valid generic name, thereby making
Oxystoglossa the junior subjective synonym. Cockerell (1923, p. 446) recorded
Oxystoglossa as a subgenus of 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(ili) 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 Augochlora (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) Halictus purus Say, 1837;
(b) Oxystoglossa Smith, 1853 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Oxystoglossa decorata Smith 1853;
to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) purus Say, 1837, as published in the binomen Halictus 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);
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, 1853 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.
—~
w
—
(4
—
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
the American Entomological Society, 26: 49-100.
Cockerell, T.D.A. 1923. Some bees from British Guiana. Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, (9)11: 442-459.
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 (Oxystoglossella) (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Journal of the Kansas
Entomological Society, 45: 18-45.
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
of Rhinocorynura inflaticeps. Biotropica, 11: 28-37.
Engel, M.S. 1995a. Three new species of Caenaugochlora (Ctenaugochlora) (Hymenoptera:
Halictidae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 103: 281-286.
Engel, M.S. 1995b. The bee genus Rhectomia (Hymenoptera: 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 Society,
Supplement, 69: 334-345.
Engel, M.S. 1997. Ischnomelissa, a new genus of augochlorine bees (Halictidae) from
Colombia. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 32: 41-46.
Engel, M.S. & Klein, B.A. 1997. Neocorynurella, a new genus of augochlorine bees from South
America (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Deutsche Entomologische 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: \-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 Hymenoptera of Costa Rica. xx, 893 pp. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Michener, C.D. 1974. The social behavior of the bees: a comparative study. xii, 404 pp. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.
Michener, C.D. 1978. The classification of halictine bees: tribes and Old World nonparasitic
genera with strong venation. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 51: 501-538.
Michener, C.D. 1986. Family-group names among bees. Journal of the Kansas Entomological
Society, 59: 219-234.
Michener, C.D., 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 colecéo Zikan (Hym. Apoidea). Revista de
Entomologia, 14: 447-484.
22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
Moure, J.S. & Hurd, P.D., Jr. 1987. An annotated catalogue of the halictid bees of the Western
Hemisphere (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). vii, 405 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington.
Packer, L. 1990. Solitary and eusocial nests in a population of Augochlorella striata
(Provancher) (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) at the northern end of its range. Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology, 27: 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 of tropical bees. x, 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, 1: 361-416.
Schremmer, F. 1979. Zum Nest-Aufbau der neuen neotropischen Furchenbienen-Art
Neocorynura colombiana (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Entomologia Generalis, 5: 149-154.
Schrottky, C. 1909. Synonymische Bemerkungen iber einige siidamerikanische Halictinae
(Hym.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 1909: 479-485.
Smith, F. 1853. Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum,
part 1: Andrenidae and Apidae. 197 pp., 6 pls. 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
Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Schicklerstrasse 5, D-16225 Eberswalde,
Germany (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 7. cingulata 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, 1886 renders Strongylogaster a junior 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 ‘7. Allant. K1.’, i.e. belonging to Tenthredo (Allantus) 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
Allantus Panzer, 1801.
2. MacGillivray (1908) placed 7. mixta as a member of Thrinax Konow, 1885, 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 7. /ineata Christ, 1791 (see, for example, Takeuchi, 1941, p. 243 and
Zhelochovtsev, 1951, p. 149). A single female specimen preserved in the Museum fir
Naturkunde in Berlin, which was determined and labelled as ‘cingulata F.’ by Klug,
agrees well with the current view of the identity of /ineata, 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 7. 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 Geoffroy’s (1762) ‘La mouche-a-scie a ventre
rayé’ 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 locality 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 Allantus brevicornis 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
brevicornis (Konow, 1886), 2 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 7. brevicornis (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 Tenthredo multifasciata Geoffroy 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 Tenthredo
multifasciata Geoffroy 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 Tenthredo 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 Tenthredo
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. Sched] (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 Symphyta (Hymenoptera) and their
type species. Esakia (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- und nordeuropaischen Selandriinae (Hymenoptera: Tenthredin-
idae). Pp. 207-224 in Taeger, A. & Blank, S.M. (Eds.), Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands.
Goecke & Evers, Keltern.
Christ, J.L. 1791. Naturgeschichte, Klassification und Nomenclatur der Insekten vom Bienen,
Wespen und Ameisengeschlecht; als der fiinften Klasse fiinfte Ordnung des Linneischen
Natursystems von den Insekten: Hymenoptera. Mit hdutigen Fligeln. 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 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, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta ..., vol. 2. 519 pp. Proft,
Hafniae.
Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent 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.
Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 8(3): 179-219.
Konow, F.W. 1886. Sieben neue A/lantus-Arten, Wiener Entomologische Zeitung, 5: 17-21.
Konow, F.W. 1888. Die Blattwespengattung Allantus Jur. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift,
Berlin, 32: 209-220.
Konow, F.W. 1905. Hymenoptera. Fam. Tenthredinidae. Jn: Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera
Insectorum, vol. 29. 176 pp. Brussels.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
MacGillivray, A.D. 1908. Emphytinae — new genera and species and synonymical notes.
Canadian Entomologist, 40(10): 365-369.
Naito, T. 1980. Studies on the Japanese sawflies of the genus Strongylogaster Dahlbom
(Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae). Kontyti (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). Japanese Journal of Genetics, 70: 167-177.
Taeger, A. 1985. Zur Systematik der Blattwespengattung Tenthredo (s. str.) L. (Hymenoptera,
Symphyta, Tenthredinidae). Entomologische Abhandlungen und Berichte aus dem
Staatlichen Museum fiir Tierkunde in Dresden, 48(8): 83-148.
Taeger, A. 1988. Zweiter Beitrag zur Systematik der Blattwespengattung Tenthredo (s. str.).
(Hymenoptera, Symphyta, Tenthredininae). Beitrdge zur Entomologie, Berlin, 38(1):
103-153.
Takeuchi, K. 1941. A systematic study on the suborder Symphyta (Hymenoptera) of the
Japanese Empire (IV). Tenthredo. Acta Entomologica (Kyoto), 3(3): 230-274.
Zhelochoytsey, A.N. 1951. Obzor palearkticheskikh pililshchikoy podsemjstva Selandriinae
(Hym., Tenthr.). Sbornik Trudov Zoologicheskogo Museya MGU (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).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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 1700, 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 saevissima (F. Smith, 1855) from near Icano, 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
Muséum 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 S. 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 S. (S.) saevissima electra 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. richteri 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 S. 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 electra wagneri; see para. 2 above) and
believed it to be unavailable (p. 173). He continued the general usage of S. 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 S. invicta as a junior subjective synonym
of S. wagneri. Use of the little-known name S. 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
S. 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 Solenopsis 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 histéridos ecitofilos (Col.). Revista Museu de La Plata, 29: 17-33.
Bruch, C. 1929. Neue myrmekophile Histeriden und Verzeichnis der aus Argentinien
bekannten Ameisengaste. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 82: 421-437.
Buren, W.F. 1972. Revisionary studies on the taxonomy of the imported fire ants. Journal of
the Georgia Entomological Society, 7: \—-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 Pheidologeton (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Australian Journal of Zoology, 14:
73-171.
Kempf, W.W. 1972. Catalogo abreviado das formigas da regiao Neotropical. Studia
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 Meer, 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 sudaméricains nouveaux ou peu connus. Physis (Buenos Aires),
2: 365-399.
Santschi, F. 1923. Solenopsis et autres fourmis néotropicales. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 30:
245-273.
Semenoy, S.M., Thompson, L.C., Jones, D.B. & Semeysky, 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].
Semeysky, F.N., Thompson, L.C. & Semenoy, 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 10th
All-Russian Myrmecological Symposium, Moscow. {In Russian, English summary].
Stafford, C.T., Hoffman, D.R. & Rhoades, R.B. 1989. Allergy to imported fire ants. Southern
Medical Journal, 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: 425-457.
Vander Meer, 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, and 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 invicta 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 saevissima complex in South America (Hymenoptera:
Formicidae). Memérias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 50: 60-68.
Wojcik, D.P. & Porter, S.D. 1997. Comprehensive literature database for the imported fire
ants, Solenopsis invicta and Solenopsis richteri. In Porter, S.D. (Ed.), FORMIS: a master
bibliography 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@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, D.C. 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; Acentropus; Nymphula.
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 Acentropus 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), Phalaena 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 NYMPHULINAE 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 Acentropus 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
Acentropus garnonsii Curtis, 1834;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name garnonsii
Curtis, 1834, as published in the binomen Acentropus garnonsii (specific name
of the type species of Acentropus Curtis, 1834);
to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, [1845] (type genus Nymphula 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, 1802 whenever they are
considered to be synonyms.
(4
SZ
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 Entomology, 11: folios 482-529.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 33
Duponchel, P.A.J. [1845]. Catalogue méthodique des Lépidoptéres d'Europe. 523 pp.
Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.
Fletcher, D.S. & Nye, I.W.B. 1982. Nymphula 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). Actas do Congresso Iberico de Entomologia, 1:
305-316.
Heppner, J.B. 1991. Faunal regions and the diversity of Lepidoptera. Tropical Lepidoptera, 2:
1-85.
Inoue, H. 1982. Moths of Japan, vol. 1. 966 pp. Kodansha, Tokyo.
Minet, J. 1982. Les Pyraloidea et leurs principales divisions systématiques (Lep. Ditrysia).
Bulletin de la Société 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 bleszynskialis n. sp., eine neue Acentropine
aus China (Lepidoptera-Pyraloidea-Acentropinae). Articulata, 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).
Atalanta, 12: 117-129.
Speidel, W. 1982. Zwei neue Arten der Gattung Paraponyx 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 Lepidopterologia, 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, I.C.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 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 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
Département de Biologie, Pavillion Alexandre-Vachon, Cité Universitaire,
Québec, Canada G1K 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, Bagrus flavus Bleeker, 1846 and B. sieboldii
Bleeker, 1846, is resolved by making them respectively objective junior synonyms of
B. planiceps Valenciennes, 1840 and B. nemurus Valenciennes, 1840.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Siluriformes; catfish; BAGRIDAE;
Hemibagrus; Hemibagrus flavus; Hemibagrus nemurus; Hemibagrus planiceps;
Hemibagrus sieboldii.
1. The nominal genus Hemibagrus was established by Bleeker (1862, 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 flavus 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 | Bagrus flavus
2. Bagrus planiceps Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (p. 421), B.
anisurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (p. 423) and B. flavus Bleeker,
1846 (p. 156) 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 Hemibagrus (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 Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
(MNHN) in Paris and the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum (NNM) in Leiden.
He reported that he had examined the ‘holotype’ of B. planiceps in the MNHN as well
as the holotype of 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(1) 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 fiir 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 difficult. 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 47-49 vertebrae, whereas the second had 50—S2 vertebrae. Of the seven Kuhl and
van Hasselt 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 47-49 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. flavus 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 47-49 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. flavus 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 43-45 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, 1846, 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 of B. flavus (see para. 19(1)(a)
below).
Bagrus nemurus | 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 Mystus 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 Muséum
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
differentiate 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 (1862, p. 55) subsequently noted that he had 32 specimens of B. 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 have been labelled as B. nemurus, and if he had any
type material of B. sieboldii 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. nemurus,
which may or may not include the types of B. 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. Ginther’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 43-45 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 of 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 B. 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. nemurus 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) Bagrus 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;
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;
to place on the Official 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);
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 flavus (a junior
objective synonym of B. planiceps Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes,
1840);
(b) sieboldii Bleeker, 1846 as published in the binomen Bagrus sieboldii
(a junior objective synonym of B. nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier &
Valenciennes, 1840).
—
to
~—
G3
—
(4
References
Bleeker, P. 1846. Overzigt der Siluroieden, welke te Batavia voorkomen. Natuur- en
Geneeskundig Archief voor Neérland’s Indié, 3: 135-184.
Bleeker, P. 1858. Ichthyologiae archipelagi indici prodromus, vol. 1. Siluri. 258 pp. Lange,
Batavia.
Bleeker, P. 1862. Atlas ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néérlandaises, vol. 2. Siluroides,
Chacoides et Hétérobranchoides. 112 pp., pls. 49-101. Muller, Amsterdam.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 41
Bleeker, P. 1878. Biographical notices concerning P. Bleeker. Pp. 11-42 in Lamme, W.H. (Ed.)
(1973), Collected fish papers of Pieter Bleeker, vol. 1. 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]. Histoire 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, Hemibagrus nemurus (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 Staatliches Museum
fiir Naturkunde in Stuttgart, part 1. The Bleeker collection. Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur
Naturkunde, serie A (Biologie), 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 formées et laissées 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: 41-47.
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 (Teleoste1: 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, A., Soeriaatmadija, R.E. & Afiff, S.A. 1996. The ecology of Java and Bali. xxiv, 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@nhm.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 Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K
Anthea Gentry
Littlewood, 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
priscus; Megalotragus kattwinkeli.
1. Until recently (see Gentry, Gentry & Mayr, 1995) the generic and specific names
of Rhynotragus 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
Geologie und Palaontologie der Friedrich-Wilhelm Universitat, Berlin (see Reck,
1914). Reck’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 J/lustrirte 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 hochgewélbte 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. semiticus below family level.
Schwarz (1937) regarded it as a distorted specimen of the living blue wildebeest,
Connochaetes 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. eucornutus, both of van Hoepen (1932,
p. 63, fig. 1), were established for the horn cores of a large antelope (tribe
ALCELAPHINI) 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 priscus 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 Alcelaphus kattwinkeli 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 fiir Palaontologie und historische Geologie in Munich. Later
Schwarz (1937) gave an expanded description of the species. His only illustration
(Schwarz, 1937, pl. 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, VIJ-468 was the number given to a lower jaw. Further, the skull
part shown in pl. 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 Alcelaphus kattwinkeli 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 R. 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 Reck’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. kattwinkeli’. 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 of Megalotragus
and M. kattwinkeli. McKenna & Bell (1997, p. 449), however, adopted Rhynotragus
as the senior name and included Megalotragus in synonymy. This adoption of
Rhynotragus was contrary to Article 80 and under Article 79c there is a prima facie
case for the conservation of both Megalotragus and M. kattwinkeli.
6. On study visits to the Bayerischen Staatssammlung fiir Palaontologie und
historische Geologie 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 Xenocephalus robustus Leakey, 1965
(p. 62, pls. 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 Xenocephalus is, in any case, preoccupied by the name for a fish
(Kaup, 1858) and for a beetle (Wasmann, 1887), the beetle having been renamed
Wasmannotherium 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 most 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 Smming.
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, pl. 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 Hornwurzel’ of Schwarz’s list. The holotype of
M. kattwinkeli, 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 would 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 Geologie in
Munich;
(b) 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 (1)(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 (1)(b) above.
References
Bernhauer, M. 1921. Zur Staphylinidenfauna von Siidamerika. Deutsche Entomologische
Zeitschrift, 1921(1): 65-77.
Bonis, L. de, Geraads, D., Jaeger, J.-J. & Sen, S. 1988. Vertébrés du Pléistocéne de Djibouti.
Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, (8)4: 323-334.
Brain, C.K. & Watson, V. 1992. A guide to the Swartkrans early hominid cave site. Annals of
the Transvaal Museum, 35: 343-365.
Brink, J.S. 1987. The archaeozoology of Florisbad, Orange Free State. Memoirs van die
Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein, 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
Megalotragus priscus (Alcelaphini, Bovidae) from the central Karoo, South Africa.
Palaeontologia Africana, 32: 17-22.
Broom, R. 1909. On a large extinct species of Bubalis. Annals of the South African Museum, 7:
279-280.
Burchell, W.J. [1823]. Travels in the interior of southern Africa, 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. Jn 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, Bloemfontein, 9: 63-84.
Gentry, A.W. 1985. The Bovidae of the Omo group deposits, Ethiopia. Pp. 119-191 in: Les
faunes Plio-Pléistocénes de la basse vallée de l’'Omo ( Ethiopie), vol. 1 (Perissodactyles —
Artiodactyles (Bovidae)). Cahiers de Paléontologie — Travaux de Paléontologie
est-africaine. Editions du CNRS, Paris.
Gentry, A.W. & Gentry, A. 1978. Fossil Bovidae (Mammalia) of Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.
Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology series, 29(4): 289-446; 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 und historische Geologie, 35: 125-135.
Geraads, D. 1987. La faune des dép6ts Pléistocénes de l’ouest du lac Natron (Tanzanie);
interpretation biostratigraphique. Sciences Géologiques, Bulletin, 40: 167-184.
Harris, J.M. 1991. Koobi 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. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 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. 1 (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, 631 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 tiber 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 innerafrikanischen Wildes. J//ustrirte Zeitung, 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 pls., 74 text-figs., map.
Brockhaus, Leipzig.
Reck, H. 1935. Neue Genera aus der Oldoway-Fauna. Zentralblatt fiir Mineralogie, Geologie
und Paldontologie, (B)1935(6): 215-218.
Schwarz, E. 1932. Neue diluviale Antilopen aus Ostafrika. Zentralblatt fiir Mineralogie,
Geologie und Paliontologie, (B)1932(1): 1-4.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 47
Schwarz, E. 1937. Die fossilen Antilopen von Oldoway. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der
Oldoway-Expedition 1913, N.F. 4: 8-104.
Thackeray, J.F. 1980. New approaches in interpreting archaeological faunal assemblages with
examples from southern Africa. South African Journal of Science, 76: 216-223.
Van Hoepen, E.C.N. 1932. Voorlopige beskrywing van Vrystaatse soogdiere. Paleontologiese
Navorsing van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein, 2(5): 63-65.
Vrba, E.S. 1977. New species of Parmularius Hopwood and Damaliscus Sclater & Thomas
(Alcelaphini, Bovidae, Mammalia) from Makapansgat and comments on faunal
chronological correlation. Palaeontologia Africana, 20: 137-151.
Vrba, E.S. 1979. Phylogenetic analysis and classification of fossil and recent Alcelaphini
Mammalia: Bovidae. Biological Journal of the 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. South African
Journal of Science, 81: 263-266.
Vrba, E.S. 1995. The fossil record of African antelopes. Pp. 385-424 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. Palaeontologia Africana, 34: 127-198.
Wasmann, E. 1887. Neue Brasilianische Staphyliniden. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift,
31: 403-416.
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,
Cromwell 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
Olympia Forest Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
3625 93rd Avenue S.W., Olympia, 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,
Strombidion 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 Corliss 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 Fromentel’s 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
caudatum should itself be rejected for this taxon under the Principle of Priority. As
Petz & Foissner themselves pointed out, the name Trichoda cometa Miller, 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 bomba Miller, 1773 and
Trichoda trochus Miller, 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 Strombidion caudatum Fromentel, 1876 as
proposed in my application should be approved, with the conservation of the
established usage of 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 Protistenkunde, 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,
clo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, 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(1) March 1999
should be attributed to the authorship of Turton & Kingston, 1830. This was
published 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 (1.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 Mater 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. Lamprohaminoea 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 of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
[1820] was a request to the Commission to ‘suppress’ two of Leach’s ms. works, The
classification of the British Mollusca ({1818]}) and A synopsis of the Mollusca 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 whom 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. 411 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 Mollusca of New Zealand. New Zealand Geological
Survey Paleontological Bulletin, no. 58. 518 pp.
Beesley, P.L., Ross, G.J.B & Wells, A.E. (Eds.). 1998. Mollusca: 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. Nudibranchs 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 Anatomy 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 Hawai'i exclusive of the Vertebrates. 314 pp. Sea Challengers,
Monterey.
Marshall, J.G. & Willan, R.C. (In press). Nudibranchs of Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef: A
survey of the Opisthobranchia (Sea slugs) of Heron and Wistari Reefs. Backhuys, Leiden.
Mikkelsen, P.M. 1996. The evolutionary relationships of Cephalaspidea s.1. (Gastropoda:
Opisthobranchia): a phylogenetic analysis. Malacologia, 37(2): 375-442.
Sabelli, B., Gianuzzi-Savelli, R. & Bedulli, D. 1990. Annotated Check-list of Mediterranean
marine mollusks, vol. 1. 348 pp. Edizioni Libreria Naturalistica Bolognese.
Spencer, H.G. & Willan, R.C. 1996. The Marine Fauna of New Zealand: Index to the Fauna, 3:
Mollusca. 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 Haminoea. The spelling
Haminaea 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 Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 53
The spelling Haminoea is the earliest 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
Haminoea.
(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 Zealand
I would like to add my support to those who argue for the retention of Haminoea.
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
Haminaea.
(8) Philippe Bouchet
Muséum 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- Universitat, 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. Lamprohaminoea).
54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
(10) Julie Marshall
La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia
I should like to support the continued use of the name Haminoea 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,
CA 94118-4599, U.S.A.
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 stability, 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 HaminoealHaminaealHaminea, 1 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 spelling 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. & Villani, G. 1993a. A new Mediterranean species of Haminaea
Leach, 1820 (Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia: Cephalaspidea). Journal of Molluscan
Studies, 59: 339-345.
Alvarez, L.A., Martinez, E., Cigarria, J., Rolan, E. & Villani, G. 1993b. Haminaea calligegenita
Gibson and Chia, 1989 (Opisthobranchia: Cephalaspidea), a Pacific species introduced in
European coasts. [berus, 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 templadoi.
Journal of Natural Products, 55(12): 1783-1786.
Carlini, D.B. 1993. A comparison of photolyase activities of Elysia tuca and Haminaea
antillarum (Mollusca: Opisthobranchia) [abstract]. American Zoologist, 33(5): 62A.
Garcia, F.J., Perez-Hurtado, A. & Garcia-Gémez, 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. Oxford 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-Universitét 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
Haminaea. | 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
(4
(5
)
)
[Turton], 1830 (gender: feminine), type species Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1758 by
monotypy;
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);
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);
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 of Haminoea [Turton], 1830);
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 (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 HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca)
(Case 3087; see BZN 55: 139-145)
(1) Philippe Bouchet
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
I wish, in my capacity as curator of Recent molluscs in the Muséum National
dHistoire Naturelle, Paris, to correct an inappropriate wording in para. 6 of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 Si
application: ‘[Boeters] regarded them [two putative syntypes found at the MNHM] as
syntypes because when Dollfus (1912, pl. 4, figs. 5-8) figured them he wrote
“Hydrobia acuta Draparnaud sp. (types: Muséum de Vienne)’ in the caption; whether
they were actually original specimens is impossible to determine’.
I should like to draw attention to p. 250 of Dollfus’s (1912) publication: ‘La figure
de Draparnaud est mauvaise, comme on pourra s’en convaincre en la comparant aux
photographies que nous donnons des échantillons types, de sa collection, dont nous
avons eu communication, de la maniere la plus aimable, par les soins des conserva-
teurs du Musée 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 Staatssammlung fiir Paldontologie und historische Geologie,
Richard-Wagner-Strasse 10/11, D-80333 Miinchen, Germany
Edmund Gittenberger and Anton J. de Winter
National Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, NL-2300 RA Leiden,
The Netherlands
Ted von Proschwitz
Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Naturhistoriska Museet, Box 7283,
S-40235 Goteborg, Sweden
Theo E.J. Ripken
Laboratoire de Biologie des Invertébrés et Malacologie, Museum National d’ Histoire
Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 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
Cyclostoma acutum 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 Cyclostoma acutum 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 Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 as designated by
Boeters (1984)
1. Cyclostoma acutum was described by Draparnaud (1905) without a locality
other than ‘France’. In view of the fact that Draparnaud was ‘Professeur d’Histoire
Naturelle 4 l’Ecole de Médecine 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 Prévost, Palavas, franzdsische
Mittelmeerkiste [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
Cyclostoma 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, pl. 4, figs. 5-8) published photographs of two syntypes from
Draparnaud’s collection, which Boeters (1984, p. 3) subsequently found in the
Muséum 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 Cyclostoma 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 Prévost (see Boeters 1984, p. 4).
3. At least until 1977 (Radoman’s paper), Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805
was understood in different ways but always related to Turbo ventrosus 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. Cyclostoma acutum 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
[H. ventrosa| being the Cyclostoma acutum of Draparnaud’); Frauenfeld (1863, p.
1019: ‘H. ventrosa Mont. ... Ich folge den englischen Autoren, die fiir die Drapar-
naudsche Art den obigen Namen annehmen ...’ [I 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, pl. 12, fig. 13) as
follows: T[urbo] 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 intire [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[aludestrina] ventrosa 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 Prévost (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 Prévost
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 Dollfus (1912), Wagner (1928, p. 275) and Germain (1931,
p. 647).
5.2. Authors who considered Hydrobia acuta as a distinct, mainly Mediterranean
species differentiated 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 H. acuta encompassed two taxa (one with flat whorls and the
other with convex whorls). The fact that Dollfus photographed two syntypes
belonging to different species (1912, pl. 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 (pl. 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 Paludestrina acuta as having a
‘spire formé 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 W6lbung’. He was
apparently not aware that the type series was a mixture of two species.
60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
6. In 1977 Radoman (p. 206, fig. 2 and pl. 21, figs. 1-2) published under the name
Hydrobia acuta 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 Turbo ventrosus. Since, until Radoman’s (1977) publication, Cyclostoma
acutum Draparnaud, 1805 had been predominantly understood as a (possibly)
younger synonym of Turbo 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, pl. 1, fig. 1, corresponding to Dollfus, 1912, pl. 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 Hydrobia ventrosa and allied
species. Further, as regards the two different species examined by Boeters from the
Etang du Prévost, 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 Hydrobia ventrosa, Irrespective of the taxonomic
question as to whether Hydrobia 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, 1805, but also for
that of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821, as will be explained in the following paragraphs.
B. The current understanding of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821
1. When establishing the genus Hydrobia, Hartmann (182la, pp. 47-48, 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 Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803, was
considered to be characteristic not only of Turbo ventrosus but also of the genus
Hydrobia, at least until 1977. This can be shown by the following references: Henking
(1894, pl. 4, fig. 2, Hydrobia ulvae); Robson (1922, p. 181, Hydrobia ventrosa); Krull
(1935, p. 433, fig. 16A, Hydrobia ventrosa, and fig. 16B, H. ulvae); Muus (1963, p. 133,
figs. A-B, Hydrobia ventrosa, and figs. E-F, H. ulvae); Davis (1966, p. 32, fig. 3,
H. totteni); Radoman (1974, p. 286, Hydrobia in general); Hershler & Davis (1980,
p. 204, fig. 4D, H. truncata).
3. It must be added that in 1963 Muus (p. 133, fig. D) described Hydrobia 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 H. 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
Hydrobia based mainly on anatomical characters, and the relevant passage of this
definition clearly says (p. 286) that ‘the penis is longer [than in Obrovia Radoman,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 61
1974] and pointed’. In consequence of this difference from the traditional under-
standing of Hydrobia, Radoman introduced a separate genus for a new species
having a penis like that of Hydrobia neglecta, viz. Obrovia Radoman, 1974 (type
species Obrovia salaria 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 Cyclostoma actum Draparnaud, 1805 and on material
collected in the Etang du Prévost, 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 Hydrobia 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 Hydrobia 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
Dayis, G.M. 1966. Notes on Hydrobia totteni. Venus, 25: 27-42.
Forbes, E. & Hanley, S.C.T. 1850-1851. A history of British Mollusca, and their shells, vol. 3.
x, 616 pp., pls. 80-115. London.
Frauenfeld, G. 1863. Vorlaufige Aufzdlung der Arten der Gattungen Hydrobia Htm. und
Amnicola Gld. Hidm. in der kaiserlichen und in Cuming’s Sammlung. Verhandlungen der
Kaiserlich Kéniglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 13: 1017-1032.
Germain, L. 1931. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles, 2. Faune de France, 22: 479-897.
Geyer, D. 1909. Unsere Land- und Stisswasser-Mollusken. Einfiihrung in die Molluskenfauna
Deutschlands, 2. Aufl. viii, 4, 155 pp., 18 pls. Stuttgart.
Geyer, D. 1927. Unsere Land- und Siisswasser-Mollusken. Einfiihrung in die Molluskenfauna
Deutschlands, 3. Aufl. xi, 224 pp., 33 pls. Stuttgart.
Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Bodon, M. 1998. A proposed neotype for Hydrobia acuta
(Draparnaud, 1805). Journal of Conchology, 36(3): 1-8. (Published November 1998).
Henking, H. 1894. Beitrage zur Kenntniss von Hydrobia ulvae Penn. und deren Brutpflege.
Bericht der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Freiburg i. Breisgau, 8: 89-108.
Hershler, R. & Davis, G.M. 1980. The morphology of Hydrobia truncata (Gastropoda:
Hydrobiidae): relevance to systematics of Hydrobia. 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. | (Land and freshwater shells). cxiv, 341 pp.,
8 pls. London.
Kennard, A.S. & Woodward, B.B. 1926. Synonymy of the British non-marine Mollusca (Recent
and post-Tertiary). xxiv, 447 pp. London.
Krull, H. 1935. Anatomische Untersuchungen an einheimischen Prosobranchiern und Beitrage
zur Phylogenie der Gastropoden. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Anatomie Ontogenese, 60:
399-464.
Muus, B.J. 1963. Some Danish Hydrobiidae with the description of a new species, Hydrobia
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 Paludestrina ventrosa, Montague [sic].
Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, (n.s.)66: 159-185.
62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March-1999
Wagner, A.J. 1928. Studien zur Molluskenfauna der Balkanhalbinsel mit besonderer Beriick-
sichtigung Bulgariens und Thraziens, nebst monographischer Bearbeitung einzelner
Gruppen. Annales Zoologici Musei Polonici Historiae Naturalis, 6(4): 263-399.
Wenz, W. 1938-1944. Gastropoda. Teil I: Allgemeiner Teil und Prosobranchia (Amphi-
gastropoda u. Streptoneura). Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6, part 1. xii, 10, 1639 pp.
Berlin.
(3) Dick F. Hoeksema
Watertoren 28, 4336 KC Middelburg, The Netherlands
For the reasons 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 of 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
umbilicus, is a specimen of H. acuta as identified by Radoman (1977). Both H. acuta
and H. ventrosa occur in the étangs near Montpellier, Hérault, 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
Prévost 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 échantillons types,
de sa [Draparnaud’s] collection ... de la maniere la plus aimable, par les soins des
conservateurs du Musée 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 “He/ix’ 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, pl. 10, fig. 13; Michaud, 1828, p. 122, pl. [1], figs. 7-9; and
Woodward, 1833, pp. 28, 44, pl. 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. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 8: 453-464.
Michaud, A.L.G. 1828. Description de plusieurs espéces de coquilles vivantes de la
Méditerranée. Bulletin d'Histoire Naturelle de la Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux, 2(10):
119-122.
Morrison, J.P.E. 1954. Hydrobia totteni, new name for Turbo minuta [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, 7, No. 210: 1-59.
Totten, J. 1834. Descriptions of some new shells belonging to the coast of New England.
American Journal of Science, 26(2): 366-369.
Woodward, S. 1833. An outline of the geology of Norfolk. 60 pp., 6 pls. Norwich.
Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio sylvanus
Esper, [1777] (currently Ochlodes venata or Augiades sylvanus; Insecta, Lepidoptera)
(Case 3046; see BZN 54: 231-235; 55: 105-106, 169-171)
Alexey L. Devyatkin
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University,
119899 Moscow, Russia
64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
de Jong & Karsholt (BZN 55: 169-171) have opposed the conservation of the specific
name of Papilio sylvanus Esper, [1777] 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 sy/vanus 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 150 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 faunus (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 name faunus 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 than 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 himself) 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 Och/odes 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 P. centaureae (Rambur, 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 faunus 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). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 115(1): 1-121.
de Jong, R. 1978. Carcharodus tripolinus Verity, stat. noy., une nouvelle espéce pour la faune
d’Europe. Remarques au sujet de la notion d’espéce. (Lepidoptera Hesperiidae). Linneana
Belgica, 7(4): 117-122.
de Jong, R. 1987. Superspecies Pyrgus malvae (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) in the East
Mediterranean, with notes on phylogenetic and biological relationships. Zoologische
Mededelingen, 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. Butterflies of Britain and Europe. 320 pp. Harper Collins, London.
Comment on the proposed designation of Jguanodon bernissartensis Boulenger in
Beneden, 1881 as the type species of Jguanodon Mantell, 1825, and proposed
designation of a lectotype (Reptilia, Ornithischia)
(Case 3037; see BZN 55: 99-104, 172, 239-241)
David Norman
The Sedgwick Museum, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge,
Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, U.K.
I would like to reply to the recent objection to the proposal to stabilise the generic
name /guanodon Mantell, 1825 by the designation of I. 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 /guanodon 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 /guanodon 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 Jguanodon atherfieldensis, I. bernissartensis and I.
fittoni, as well as I. lakotaensis from North America, Ouranosaurus nigeriensis from
North Africa and A/tirhinus kurzanovi from Mongolia, and the more distantly related
Camptosaurus 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 Hydrosaurus 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, Australia
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 gouldii (Gray, 1838) for
the sand monitor or Gould’s goanna which is found over most of Australia, and of
V. 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. flavirufus (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 Hydrosaurus, 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
(v)
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.
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 panoptes 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 horni
V. flavirufus.
3. Nothing in the application changes the position as earlier stated (above) by its
most senior author.
4. To avoid any ambiguity, throughout this comment the animal that the authors
refer to as panoptes will here be discussed as gouldii, in line with Bohme (1991). The
animal identified as flavirufus 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 16 years in various
publications.
6. In 1991, BOhme published a paper showing that 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 and flavirufus for
the related species have near universal usage.
7. Recent (post-1994) publications that have correctly used the names gou/dii 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 gou/dii 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 (1993,
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 gouldii and flavirufus. Press, Brock & Andersen (1995),
while using the name panoptes in favor of gouldii, 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 panoptes
based on recent (post-1994) publications is invalid.
9. Not only has B6hme’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.
11. The application further argues that the name flavirufus is virtually unused for
the lizards the authors seek to rename gou/dii. 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 Australian 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:
106-111), 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. Reptiles 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 and corruption in Australia. xx, 260
pp. Kotabi, Doncaster, Victoria.
Lemm, J. 1997. Reptile dreamtime. Reptiles, 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).
Worrell, E. 1970. Reptiles of Australia. xv, 169 pp. Angus & Robertson, Sydney.
(2) Anthea Gentry
ICZN Secretariat, clo The Natural History Museum, London SW7 SBD, 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 1838. The earliest catalogue is that of Gray (1845a)
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 of 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 of 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] and 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 7. s. infernalis
(Case 3012; see BZN 55: 224-228)
Hobart M. Smith
Department of Environmental, 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 Thamnophis sirtalis 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 Szaboles
University of Agriculture, Institute of Animal Breeding,
H-9200 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 Pernambuco, 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 M13 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
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
OPINION 1913
Pila Réding, 1798 and Pomacea Perry, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
placed on the Official List, and AMPULLARMIDAE Gray, 1824: confirmed
as the nomenclaturally valid synonym of PILIDAE Preston, 1915
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Pila; Pomacea; Ampullaria;
Ampullarius; AMPULLARIIDAE; PILIDAE; apple snails; agricultural pests.
Ruling
(1) It is hereby confirmed that the family-group name AMPULLARIIDAE Gray, 1824
(2
)
(3)
(5
(6
~
=
is the nomenclaturally valid synonym of PILIDAE Preston, 1915.
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, 1799), type species by subsequent designation by Dall
(1904) Helix ampullacea Linnaeus, 1758;
(b) Pomacea Perry, 1810 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Pomacea maculata Perry, 1810.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) ampullacea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Helix ampullacea
(specific name of the type species of Pila Réding, 1798);
(b) maculata Perry, 1810, as published in the binomen Pomacea maculata
(specific name of the type species of Pomacea Perry, 1810).
The name AMPULLARUDAE Gray, 1824, type genus Ampullaria Lamarck, 1799
(a junior objective synonym of Pila Réding, 1798), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.
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 Réding,
1798);
(b) Ampullarius de Montfort, 1810 (an unjustified emendation of Ampullaria
Lamarck, 1799 and a junior objective synonym of Pila Réding, 1798);
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 AMPULLARIDAE Gray, 1824 and invalid by the ruling given in (1)
above).
History of Case 2996
An application to place Pila Réding, 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 literature in the use of the family-group names AMPULLARIIDAE Gray,
1824 and piLipaE Preston, 1915, and the generic names Pi/a Roding, 1798, Ampullaria
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 Ampullaria 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 | 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 | 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 présomptueux de rejeter un nom dt a Lamarck (1799)
et confirmé par lui en 1801 dans le chef-d’oeuvre classique de son Systeme des
animaux sans vertébres. Il est singulier de vouloir lui préférer un nom générique
publié, sans diagnose et par un auteur obscur (P.F. Réding) dans un catalogue de
vente ignoré durant 150 ans. Puisqu’il faut, bien entendu, conserver AMPULLARIIDAE,
il serait contradictoire de supprimer Ampullaria. La proposition que je rejette n’a pas
d’autre fondement que l’Opinion 96 laquelle, 4a mon avis, représente 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, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 771.
76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March.1999
Ampullaria Lamarck, 1799, Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, 1: 76.
AMPULLARIDAE Gray, 1824, Philosophical Magazine and Journal, 63(312): 276.
Ampullarius de Montfort, 1810, Conchyliologie systématique, et classification méthodique des
coquilles, vol. 2, pp. 242 (fig.), 243 (text).
maculata, Pomacea, Perry, 1810, Arcana; or the Museum of Natural History, pl. 11 and text.
Pila Réding, 1798, Museum 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, pl. 11 and text.
The following is the reference for the designation of Helix ampullacea Linnaeus, 1758 as the
type species of the nominal genus Pi/a Réding, 1798:
Dall, W.H. 1904. Journal of Conchology, 11(2): 53.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 77
OPINION 1914
Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842, Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949,
Geoteuthis Minster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia
Quenstedt, 1839, Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesioteuthis 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) Atramentarius 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 Minster, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Bilow-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, Minster, 1843;
(f) Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation and monotypy Geoteuthis sagittata Minster, 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, 1840, as published in the binomen Belopeltis simplex (specific
name of the type species of Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949);
(b) bollensis Schiibler in Zieten, 1832, as published in the binomen Loligo
bollensis (specific name of the type species of Geoteuthis Minster, 1843);
78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
(c) agassizii Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835, as published in the binomen
Teudopsis agassizii (specific name of the type species of Jeletzkyteuthis
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) flexuosa Minster, 1843, as published in the binomen Geoteuthis flexuosa
Miinster, 1843 (specific name of the type species of Parabelopeltis Naef,
1921);
(f) sagittata Minster, 1843, as published in the binomen Geofeuthis sagittata
(specific name of the type species of Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921);
(g) montefiorei Buckman, 1880, as published in the binomen Belemnoteuthis
montefiorei; s
(h) antiqua Pearce, 1847, as published in the binomen Belemnoteuthis (sic)
antiquus [recte antiqua] (specific name of the type species of Belemnotheutis
Pearce, 1842).
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Belemnosepia Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1836, as suppressed in
(1)(a)(i) above;
(b) Atramentarius Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1838, as suppressed in
(1)(a)(ii) above;
(c) Belemnoteuthis Pearce, 1847 (unavailable as an incorrect subsequent
spelling of Belemnotheutis).
(5) The name belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830, as published in the binomen
Orthoceras belemnitoeides and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
The name BELEMNOSEPIDAE 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 (1)(a)(i) above).
(6
—
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 Belemnosepia Buckland & Agassiz in
Buckland, 1836, 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 fiir Paldontologie, Freie Universitat 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 Atramentarius Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1838 be
suppressed to conserve Belemnotheutis 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 Riegraf’s 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 Belemnoteuthis (sic) montefiorei
Buckman, 1880 by suppression of Orthoceras belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830, and
suppression of Atramentarius (proposals on BZN 53: 257-258 and items (1) and (4)(a)
on BZN 54: 185). Vote (2) related to the placement of Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842,
and the name of its type species Belemnoteuthis (sic) antiqua Pearce, 1847, on Official
Lists (items (2), (3) and (4)(b) on BZN 54: 185).
Decision of the Commission
On | September 1998 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, Minelli,
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 Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990 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 -feuthis 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 11 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 (1)(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, Schibler, 1832, in Zieten, C.H. von, Die Versteinerungen Wiirttembergs,
Expeditum des Werkes ‘Unsere Zeit’, part 5, p. 34.
agassizii, Teudopsis, Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835, Mémoires de la Société Linnéenne de
Normandie, 5: 72.
antiqua, Belemnoteuthis (sic), Pearce, 1847, London Geological Journal, 2: pls. 15-16.
Atramentarius Buckland & Agassiz, 1838, in Buckland, W., Geologie und Mineralogie in
Beziehung zur nattirlichen Theologie, vol. 2, pl. 44”, fig. 7, footnote.
belemnitoeides, Orthoceras, Buckland, 1830, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 8: 23.
Belemnosepia Buckland & Agassiz, 1836, in Buckland, W., Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie,
Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1836: 39.
BELEMNOSEPIIDAE Naef, 1921, Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, 35: 47.
Belemnoteuthis Pearce, 1847, London Geological Journal, 2: pls. 15-16.
Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 3: 593.
bollensis, Loligo, Schiibler, 1832, in Zieten, C.H. von, Die Versteinerungen Wiirttembergs,
Expeditum des Werkes ‘Unsere Zeit’, part 5, p. 34.
flexuosa, Geoteuthis, Minster, 1843, in Minster, G. Graf zu, Meyer, H.V. & Wagner, R.
(Eds.), Beitrage zur Petrefacten-Kunde ..., p. 75.
Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949, Archives du Musée Teyler, (3)10: 56.
Geoteuthis Minster, 1843, in Minster, 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 Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und
Petrefaktenkunde, 1839: 163.
montefiorei, Belemnoteuthis (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, 1921, Mitteilungen aus der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel, 22: 534.
sagittata, Geoteuthis, Minster, 1843, in Minster, G. Graf zu, Meyer, H.V. & Wagner, R.
(Eds.), Beitrdge zur Petrefacten-Kunde ..., p. 72.
simplex, Belopeltis, Voltz, 1840, Mémoires de la Société du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de
Strasbourg, 3: 23.
The following is the reference for the designation of Loligo bollensis Schubler in Zieten, 1832
as the type species of the nominal genus Geoteuthis Minster, 1843:
Biilow-Trummer, E. yon. 1920. Fossilium Catalogus 1: Animalia, part 11 (Cephalopoda
dibranchiata), p. 252.
The following is the reference for the designation of Loligo aalensis Schiibler in Zieten, 1832
as the type species of the nominal genus Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839:
Regteren Altena, C.O. van. 1949. Archives du Musée 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: pls. 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 I.G. Sohn (U.S.
Geological Survey, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and Dr Iya I. 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 | 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 Tsentral’nogo Nauchno-Issledovatel’skogo Geologo-
Razvedochnogo Instituta [Transactions of the Central Geological Prospecting Institute], 97:
159. [In Russian, English summary].
Suchonella, typica, 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, pl. 46, fig. 6.
82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
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
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; Plecoptera; beetles; stoneflies;
Kateretes; Brachypterus; Brachyptera; 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 Frison (1929) Nemoura trifasciata 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 trifasciata
(specific name of the type species of Brachyptera Newport, 1848)
(Plecoptera);
(b) pedicularius Linaeus, 1758, 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 (1)(a) above (Plecoptera);
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 83
(b) KATERETIDAE Erichson in Agassiz, [1846] (type genus Kateretes Herbst,
1793) with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on
Kateretes are to be given precedence over BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845]
(type genus Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794) and other family-group names
based on Brachypterus whenever they are considered to be synonyms
(Coleoptera);
(c) BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845] (type genus Brachypterus Kugelann,
1794), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on
Brachypterus 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 (1)(a) above) (Plecoptera).
History of Case 2865
The original application, received from Prof P.A. Audisio & Prof R. Fochetti
(Universita degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, Italy) and Prof P. Zwick
(Limnologische Flussstation Schlitz des Max-Planck-Instituts fiir Limnologie, 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 Brachypterus 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 Brachypterus. Prof
Audisio also noted that Thomson’s (1859) designation of Dermestes urticae
Fabricius, 1792 as the type species of Brachypterus was earlier than that by Parsons
(1943) cited in para. | 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 OF 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, Slipinski & Lawrence, 1994; Lawrence & Newton, 1995).
A comment from Dr R.G. Booth (International Institute of Entomology, clo 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 116 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 of Kateretes (as Cateretes), Dermestes pedicularius 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]. Nomenclator zoologicus, fasc. 11 (Nomina systematica generum Coleop-
terorum tam viventium quam fossilium). xii, 170 pp. Soloduri.
Agassiz, L. [1847]. Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis. x, 1135 pp. Soloduri. (The dates
of Agassiz’s works were set out in pp. x-xi, | of Nye, I.W.B. (Ed.). 1979. The generic
names of moths of the world, vol. 3).
Hope, F.W. 1840. The coleopterist’s manual, part 3. 191 pp. Bridgewater, London.
Newton, A.F. Jr. & Thayer, 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 1 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 from 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:
Brachyptera Newport, 1848, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 1: 388.
BRACHYPTERAINAE Zwick, 1973, Das Tierreich, 94: 308 (incorrectly spelled as BRACHY-
PTERINAE).
BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845], Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands, Abt. |
(Coleoptera), vol. 3, p. 125.
BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973, Das Tierreich, 94: 308 (an incorrect original spelling of
BRACHYPTERAINAE).
Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794, Neuestes Magazin fiir Liebhaber der Entomologie, 1(5): 560.
Kateretes Herbst, 1793, Natursystem aller bekannten in- und ausldndischen Insecten ..., p. 11.
KATERETIDAE Erichson in Agassiz, [1846], Nomenclator zoologicus, fasc. 11, p. 30.
pedicularius, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 357.
trifasciata, Nemoura, Pictet, 1832, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 26: 379.
urticae, Dermestes, Fabricius, 1792, Entomologia Systematica, vol. 1, part 1, p. 235.
The following is the reference for the designation of Nemoura trifasciata Pictet, 1832 as the
type species of Brachyptera Newport, 1848:
Frison, T.H. 1929. Bulletin of the Illinois State 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 bearbetade, 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,
1781, 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 Official 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 Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) camillus Cramer, [1780], as published in the binomen Papilio camillus and
as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) sibilla Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Papilio sibilla and as
suppressed in (1)(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: ‘I 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 reductd Staudinger, 1901 was placed on the Official List in
Opinion 562 (April 1959). However, the senior synonym Papilio sibilla Linnaeus,
88 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 | September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 54: 157. 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
Limenitis reducta Staudinger, 1901 and Papilio camilla Linaeus, 1764 respectively, by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
camillus, Papilio, Cramer, [1780], De uitlandsche Kapellan voorkomende in de drie Waereld-
deelen Asia, Africa en America, vol. 4, part 25, p. 20.
camillus, Papilio, Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum ..., vol. 2, p. 11.
camilla, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1764, Museum S:ae R:ae M:tis Ludovicae Ulricae ..., part 1
(Insecta), p. 304.
reducta, Limenitis camilla, Staudinger, 1901, in Staudinger, O. & Rebel, H., Catalog der
Lepidopteren des Palaearctischen Faunengebietes, Ed. 3, Theil 1 (Famil. Papilionidae —
Hepialidae), p. 22.
sibilla, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2, p. 781.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 89
OPINION 1918
MELOIDAE Gyllenhal, 1810 and NEMOGNATHINAE 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 Nemognatha Illiger, 1807 are to be given precedence over
HORMDAE 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 fabriciana 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 Me/oe 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 Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology:
(a) MELOIDAE Gyllenhal, 1810 (type genus Me/oe Linnaeus, 1758), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Meloe are to
be given precedence over HORUDAE Latreille, 1802 and other family-group
names based on Horia Fabricius, 1787 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 HORIDAE 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) HORMIDAE 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, 1758 or NEMOGNATHINAE Castelnau, 1840
and other family-group names based on Nemognatha Illiger, 1807 whenever
they are considered to be synonyms;
(d) ZONITIDINAE Mulsant, 1857 (type genus Zonitis 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, 1810 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 (University 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 Entomologie, 72: xxvii.
flava, Zonitis, Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae ..., p. 127.
Horia Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum, part 1, p. 164.
HORUDAE Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes
Zorg VOle SPeaoe
Meloe Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 419.
MELOIDAE Gyllenhal, 1810, Insecta Suecica descripta. Classis I. Coleoptera sive Eleutherata.
Pars IT, p. 481.
Nemognatha Mlliger, 1807, Magazin fiir Insektenkunde, vol. 6, p. 333.
NEMOGNATHINAE Castelnau, 1840, Histoire naturelle des animaux articulés, part 2, p. 280.
proscarabaeus, Meloe, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 430.
vittata, Zonitis, Fabricius, 1801, Systema Eleutheratorum, vol. 2, p. 24.
ZONITIDINAE Mulsant, 1857, Histoire naturelle des Coléoptéres de France. Vésicants, p. 164
(incorrectly spelled as ZONITINAE).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 91
ZONITINAE Mulsant, 1857, Histoire naturelle des Coléoptéres de France. Vésicants, p. 164 (an
incorrect original spelling of ZONITIDINAE).
Zonitis Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae ..., p. 126.
The following is the reference for the designation of Meloe proscarabaeus Linnaeus, 1758 as
the type species of the nominal genus Me/oe Linnaeus, 1758:
Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les
classes des crustacés, des arachnides, et des insectes, p. 419.
The following is the reference for the designation of Horia fabriciana Betrem, 1929 as the
type species of the nominal genus Horia Fabricius, 1787:
Betrem, J.C. 1929. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 72: xxvii.
The following is the reference for the designation of Zonitis flava Fabricius, 1775 as the type
species of the nominal genus Zonitis Fabricius, 1775:
Selander, R.B. 1987. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, (n.s.)34: 341.
92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
OPINION 1919
Polyrhachis Smith, 1857 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): given precedence
over Myrma Billberg, 1820
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; FORMICIDAE; ants; Polyrhachis;
Myrma.
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 bihamata 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 militaris 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.
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 bihamata
(specific name of the type species of Polyrhachis Smith, 1857);
(b) militaris Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Formica militaris
(specific name of the type species of Myrma Billberg, 1820).
—
Ww
—
History of Case 3009
An application for the conservation of the generic name Polyrhachis Smith, 1857
by giving it precedence over Myrma Billberg, 1820 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 | 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
1
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999 93
Negative votes — none.
No votes were received from Dupuis, 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:
bihamata, Formica, Drury, 1773, Illustrations of natural history; wherein are exhibited ... figures
of exotic insects, vol 2, p. 73, index.
militaris, Formica, Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum ..., vol. 1, p. 493.
Myrma Billberg, 1820, Enumeratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg, p. 104.
Polyrhachis Smith, 1857, Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Zoology, 2: 58.
The following is the reference for the designation of 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 fasciatus; 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 Strongylopus 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 (Muséum 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, Pietermaritzburg, 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 | 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 | 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 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 name Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838 placed on
the Official List, and to the endorsement for Rana fasciata Smith, 1849 on the Official List, by
the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Jasciata, Rana, Smith, 1849, Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa. Reptilia, pl. 78, text.
Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838, Mémoires de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de Neuchdtel, 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 Rana 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 Noble, 1931, CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 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; Phrynobatrachus;
Petropedetes; Cacosternum; Hemimantis; Africa.
Ruling :
(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the family-group name
(3
(4
)
SS
PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931 and other family-group names based on Petro-
pedetes 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 Hoffmann, 1878 and
other family-group names based on Hemimantis Peters, 1863.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Petropedetes cameronensis Reichenow, 1874;
(b) Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy _
Cacosternum nanum Boulenger, 1887;
(c) Phrynobatrachus Giinther, 1862 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Phrynobatrachus natalensis Giinther, 1862 (a junior subjective
synonym of Stenorhynchus natalensis A. Smith, 1849);
(d) Hemimantis Peters, 1863 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Hemimantis calcaratus Peters, 1863.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) cameronensis Reichenow, 1874, as published in the binomen Petropedetes
cameronensis (specific name of the type species of Petropedetes Reichenow,
1874);
(b) nanum Boulenger, 1887, as published in the binomen Cacosternum nanum
(specific name of the type species of Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887);
(c) natalensis A. Smith, 1849, as published in the binomen Stenorhynchus
natalensis (senior subjective synonym of Phrynobatrachus natalensis
Giinther, 1862, the type species of Phrynobatrachus Ginther, 1862);
(d) calcaratus Peters, 1863, as published in the binomen Hemimantis calcaratus
(specific name of the type species of Hemimantis Peters, 1863).
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology:
(a) PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931 (type genus Petropedetes 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 Hemimantis Peters, 1863) and other family-group names
based on Hemimantis and (by the first reviser action of Dubois, 1982) over
CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 (type genus Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887)
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;
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (type genus Phrynobatrachus Ginther,
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 Hemimantis 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
Giinther, 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 Stenorhynchus
A. Smith, 1849).
(c
~
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 (Muséum 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 Natural
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 Phrynobatrachus 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; five 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: ‘I 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(1) 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 | September 1998 they were invited to
revote on proposals B and C. At the close of this voting period on 1 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.
Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (5)20: 51.
calearatus, Hemimantis, Peters, 1863, Monatsberichte der Kéniglichen 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, Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 40(1.3): 290.
HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffmann, 1878, in Bronn, H.G., Die Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs
wissenschafilich dargestellt in Wort und Bild, vol. 6, part 2, pp. 613, 635.
100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(1) March 1999
Hemimantis Peters, 1863, Monatsberichte der Kéniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften zu Berlin, 1863: 451.
Leptoparius Peters, 1863, Monatsberichte der Koniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften zu Berlin, 1863: 452.
nanum, Cacosternum, Boulenger, 1887, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (5)20: 52.
natalensis, Stenorhynchus, A. Smith, 1849, Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa ...
Reptilia, Appendix, pp. 23-24.
Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874, Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 40(1.3): 290.
PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931, The biology of the Amphibia, p. 520.
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941, Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 34(2): 192.
Phrynobatrachus Gunther, 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 Illiger,
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 Illiger
(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 532011 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 Illiger, 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
Illiger, 1811 is hereby emended to record Bradypus 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 (c/o 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 (1762) work entitled Regnum
Animale in classes IX distributum ..., Ed. 2, was rejected for nomenclatural purposes
in Opinion 1894 (March 1998), Brisson’s name Tardigradus for the sloths was not one
of the 11 mammal generic names which were then conserved (the names Bradypus
102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(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 1894 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 of 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 Mlliger, 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 | September 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 51: 334 and 55: 119. 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
Index, and to the emended entry on the Official List for Choloepus Illiger, 1811, by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Choloepus Mliger, 1811, Prodromus systematis Mammalium et Avium ..., p. 108.
Loridium Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la nature, p. 54.
Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796, Magasin Encyclopédique, ou journal des sciences, des —
lettres et des arts, (2)1(1): 48, 49.
Stenops Ulliger, 1811, Prodromus systematis Mammalium et Avium ..., p. 73.
Tardigradus Boddaert, 1785, Elenchus Animalium, vol. 1 (Sistens Quadrupedia), pp. 43, 67.
tardigradus, Lemur, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 29.
The following is the reference for the designation of Lemur tardigradus Linnaeus, 1758 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 Choloepus Illiger, 1811:
Gray, J.E. 1827. Synopsis of the species of the Class Mammalia .... Vol. 5 in 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: 119.
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 stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the
Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants are advised to discuss
their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so
that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other
zoologists.
Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting
out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text
references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800,
p. 39) described .. .’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat.
References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more
relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should
be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined
and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of
publication.
Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary,
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. It would help to reduce
the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the
typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format,
preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible.
The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the
formulation of an application.
Contents — continued
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Papilio sylvanus Esper,
[1777] (currently Ochlodes venata or Augiades sylvanus; Insecta, spice aoe
A.L. Devyatkin ,
On the proposed designation of lean Bernissanienass ‘Boulenger in Beneden,
1881 as the type species of [gwanodon Mantell, 1825, and proposed designation of
a lectotype (Reptilia, Ornithischia). D. Norman .
On the proposed conservation of the names Hydrosaurus oma Gay 1838 aad
Varanus panoptes Storr, 1980 (Reptilia, Squamata) by the designation of a neotype
for H. gouldii. R.T. Hoser; A. Gentry .
On the proposed conservation of Coluber eraalis Blainville, 1835 eral Fitaenia
sirtalis tetrataenia Cope in Yarrow, 1875 (currently Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis
and T. s. tetrataenia; Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the sub-
specific names by the designation of a neotype for T. s. infernalis. H.M. Smith .
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. N. Szaboles; A. Mones .
On the proposed conservation of LORISIDAE Gum 1821 and GALAGIDAE Gane 1825
(Mammalia, Primates) as the correct original spellings. D.W. Yalden . :
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 1913. Pila Réding, 1798 and Pomacea Perry, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastro-
poda): placed on the Official List, and AMPULLARIDAE Gray, 1824: confirmed as
the nomenclaturally valid synonym of PILIDAE Preston, 1915 . . oe
OPINION 1914. Belemnotheutis Pearce, 1842, Geopeltis Regteren Alfena: 1949,
Geoteuthis Minster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia Quenstedt,
1839, Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 (Mollusca, Coleo-
idea): conserved, and the specific name of Belemnoteuthis (sic) montefiorei
Buckman, 1880: conserved . .
OPINION 1915. Suchonella Saichaniey, ‘1937 (Crustacea, Yes Eee) Sa chencnn
typica Spizharsky, 1939 designated as the type species . :
OPINION 1916. BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plegoptere): Ene
emended to BRACHYPTERAINAE, SO removing the homonymy with BRACHYPTERINAE
Erichson, [1845] (Insecta, Coleoptera); KATERETIDAE Erichson in Agassiz, [1846]:
given precedence over BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson. . .
OPINION 1917. Papilio camillus Fabricius, 1781 (currently ‘Cyrestis commis)
and Limenitis reducta saa a 1901 a Files sds specific names
conserved. . .
OPINION 1918. MELOIDAE Gyileahal, ‘1810 and NEMOGNATHINAE Castetian, 1840
(Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over HORUDAE Latreille, 1802 .
OPINION 1919. Polyrhachis Smith, 1857 (Insecta, Seas ies given seas
over Myrma Billberg, 1820 .
OPINION 1920. Strongylopus Techudi, 1838. (Amphibia ‘Anura) ent face
Smith, 1849 designated as the type species . ;
OPINION 1921. PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931, CACOSTERNINAE ‘Noble, 1931 fad
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura): given precedence over
HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffmann, 1878, and PHRYNOBATRACHINAE: not given aa
Over PETROPEDETINAE . .
OPINION 1922. Loris E. Geatizay Bia Flair, 1796 (annie ‘Bama:
conserved, and correction made to the entry for Choloepus Illiger, 1811 (Xenar-
thra) on the Official List . :
Information and instructions for authors .
63
65
66
74
77
81
82
94
96
101
104
CONTENTS
Notices . : 5
The International Goninon: on izenlanical Nomendlanne aaa its mbites :
Addresses of members of the Commission
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .
Towards Stability in the Names of Animals.
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 . i eae toy on aie ae Coan aes
Applications
Eudendrium arbuscula Wright, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation of
the specific name. A.C. Marques & W. Vervoort . Fe
AUGOCHLORINI Moure, 1943 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): peered precienes over
OXYSTOGLOsSINI Schrottky, 1909. M.S. Engel F
Strongylogaster Dahlbom, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): peed conse ‘by
the designation of Tenthredo multifasciata Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 as the type
species. S.M. Blank, A. Taeger & T. Naito .
Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed consenvation of the
specific name. S.O. Shattuck, S.D. Porter & D.P. Wojcik oar
NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, [1845] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): bee preceicueele over
ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835. M.A. Solis A :
Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862 (Osteichthyes, Silurifonmes): ipaipoted: 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
Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): pape coneeepatice
and Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently Megalotragus kattwinkeli):
proposed conservation of the specific name. A.W. Gentry & A. Gentry .
Comments
On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Strombidium gyrans Stokes,
1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans) and Strobilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida). C.W. Heckman.
Haminoea, Haminaea or Haminea (Mollusca, Gastrapeday. noes and come 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
On the proposed conservation of Bache Bartana, 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 HyDROBINA 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.EJ. Ripken; D.F. Hoeksema;
D. Kadolsky . fog cee ee Dailies a Buca aa oe
34
42
49
Continued on Inside Back Cover —
Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset
Bulletin
F Agical
Nomenclature
on Zoological Nomencla a
and
a 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. 0171-938 9387)
(e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
(http://www.iczn.org)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President
Vice-President
Executive Secretary
Members
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology)
Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca)
Prof D. J. Brothers
(South Africa; Hymenoptera)
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda)
DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer
(U.S.A.; Ichthyology)
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda)
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus
(Germany, Arachnology)
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology)
Secretariat
Prof A. Minelli (Jtaly)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)
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)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Prof S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999
HISTORY M
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 | ZN J [195
PU i} 1( if
{ZOOLOGY |
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE = "===
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 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 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 Schulze, 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. Freytag.
(6) Gnomulus Thorell, 1890 (Arachnida, Opiliones): proposed designation of
G. sumatranus Thorell, 1891 as the type species. (Case 3116). J. Martens &
P. Schwendinger.
rm A
’ 1
2 Pe |
iSEUM
10
tvvd
ASED
LIBRARY
106
(7)
(8
—
(9
—
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999
Plinthus 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.
Anthaxia Eschscholtz, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of
Buprestis nitida Rossi, 1794 as the type species. (Case 3118). S. Bily.
VACHONIAINAE Maury, 1973 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation
as the correct spelling. (Case 3119). V. Fet & M.E. Braunwalder.
ISCHNURAINAE Fraser, 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.
Holochilus Brandt, 1835, Proechimys Allen, 1899 and Trinomys Thomas, 1921
(Mammalia, Rodentia): proposed conservation by the designation of
Holochilus sciureus Wagner, 1842 as the type species of Holochilus. (Case
3121). R.S. Voss & N.I. Abramson.
Mixosaurus cornalianus Bassani, 1886 (Reptilia, Ichthyosauria): proposed
designation of a replacement neotype. (Case 3122). W. Brinkmann.
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.
Apis proava Menge, 1856 (currently Electrapis proava; Insecta,
Hymenoptera): proposed conservation by the designation of a neotype. (Case
3124). M.S. Engel.
Rhinoncus Schénherr, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation.
(Case 3125). E. Colonnelli.
Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 1965 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed
conservation of the specific name. (Case 3126). D.S. Brown, F. Naggs & V.R.
Southgate.
Bothrops caribbaeus Garman, 1887 (currently Trigonocephalus caribbaeus;
Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3127).
W. Wister.
(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 /nternational 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 name 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
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 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 SBD, 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@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 Works in Zoology (1985) — reduced
from £60 to £30 and from $110 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 Thorne
(Editorial Manager), BIOSIS, U.K.
BIOSIS, U.K., Garforth House, 54 Micklegate, York YOI 1LF, 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 a// 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 published, 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
§2: 229-232, 296, 300; 53: 6-7, 8-9, 11, 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 availability
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 listing; others, perhaps more realistic, would consider it
useful);
(c) in combination with other resources such as Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus
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 the 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
different 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 Mollusca 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 Mollusca 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) Names missed from items of
literature which have been screened; the majority of these are simply the result 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 1 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. & Zimmer, B. (LAPT Executive
Committee). 1998. Proposals to implement mandatory registration of new names. Taxon,
47(4): 899-904 (see also Biology International, 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 SBD, U.K.
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Bulinus
wrighti 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 of Bulinus wrightii 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. Miller, 1781. Neither Pseudachatina wrightii (Sowerby,
1853) nor Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 1965 has a junior synonym.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; PLANORBIDAE; ACHATINIDAE;
Pseudachatina wrightii; Bulinus wrighti; schistosomiasis.
1. G.B. Sowerby sen. (1853, p. 1, pl. 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 locality, 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 Achatina 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 Bulinus was established by O.F. Miiller (1781, p. 6) for a group of
species which included “Le Bulin Bulinus’ of Adanson (1757, Coquillages, p. 5, pl. 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 wrighti 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, pl. 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
& Théron, 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 Tchuenté 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 (1853) 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 Miller. Sowerby’s species was
placed in Pseudachatina Albers, 1850 by H. & A. Adams as long ago as 1855, and
there it has since remained. The two species Pseudachatina 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 (1) 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. Histoire naturelle du Senégal. Coquillages. 190, xcvi pp., 19 pls., 275 pp.
Paris.
Ailly, A. d’. 1896. Contributions a la connaissance des mollusques terrestres et d’eau douce de
Kaméroun. Bihang till Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 22(4, 2):
3-137.
Al-Safadi, M.M. 1990. Freshwater molluscs of Yemen Arab Republic. Hydrobiologia, 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.
Hydrobiologia, 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 Mediterranean 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.
MeMillan, 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): 33-44.
116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999
Mouahid, A., Bouhaddioui, N., Jana, M., Combes, C. & Moné, H. 1992. Effects of different
molluse associations on target molluscs growth and parasite cercarial production, in the
triple system: Bulinus wrighti-Schistosoma bovis and Melanopsis praemorsa. Journal of
Molluscan Studies, 58: 349-355.
Mouahid, A. & Théron, A. 1987. Schistosoma bovis: variability of cercarial production as
related to the snail hosts Bulinus truncatus, B. wrighti and Planorbarius metidjensis.
International Journal for Parasitology, 17: 1431-1434.
Miiller, O.F. 1781. Geschichte der Perlen-Blasen. Der Naturforscher, Halle, 15: 1-20.
Pain, T. & Paul, C.R.C. 1967. Studies in the genus Pseudachatina Albers (Mollusca —
Achatinidae). Annales. Musée Royal de l'Afrique Centrale, 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 mollusks of the Belgian Congo, with a
geographical and ecological account of Congo malacology. Bulletin of the American
Museum of Natural History, 53: 69-602. J
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 S. bovis from Senegal: development in
Mesocricetus auratus, compatibility with species of Bulinus and their enzymes. Journal of
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 pl. London.
Sowerby, G.B., jun. 1841. Conchological illustrations. [iv], [116] pp., [200] pls. London.
Tchuem Tchuenté, L.A., Southgate, V.R., Vercruysse, J., Kaukas, A., Kane, R., Mulumba,
M.P., Pagés, 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, I1.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 SPHAERIUSIDAE 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, 1845 and the name of its type genus Sphaerius Waltl, 1838.
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 SPHAERIDAE in Mollusca 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 obsidianus Kolenati, 1846, 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: Sphaerium 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) SPHAERUDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (type genus Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777);
(b) MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 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) Cyclas 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) SPHAERUIDAE 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 SPHAERIDAE Jeffreys, 1862 (1820) (Mollusca; 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 of 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
Endrédy-Y ounga (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 Microsporus 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, 1846,
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. L6bl (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 Waltl, 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, 1838 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 (1)(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 SPHAERIDAE Erichson, 1845 to read ‘SPHAERIIDAE
Erichson, 1845 (an incorrect original spelling of SPHAERIUSIDAE)’ under the
ruling given in (1)(b) above.
References
Crotch, G.R. 1873. On the arrangement of the families of Coleoptera. Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, 13: 75-87.
Endrédy-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. Meletemata Entomologica, vol. 5. 169 pp. Petropoli.
Lafer, G.S. 1989. Sphaeriidae. Pp. 258-259 in Ler, P.A. (Ed.), Opredelitel nasekomych Dalnego
Vostoka 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. & Slipinski,
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, I. 1995. New species of. terrestrial Microsporus from the Himalaya (Coleoptera:
Microsporidae). Entomologische Blatter, 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 Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 12. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.
Mathews, A. 1899. A monograph of the families Corylophidae and Sphaeriidae. 220 pp., 8 pls.
Janson, London.
Reichardt, H. 1976. Sphaeriidae Insecta and Mollusca: comments on the Secretary’s revised
proposals. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 32: 203-204.
Telnoy, 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 nahern naturhistorischen Kenntniss des Unterdonaukreises in
Bayern. /sis von Oken, 1838: 250-273.
White, D. & Brigham, W.U. 1996. 20. Aquatic Coleoptera. Pp. 399-473 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 SBD, 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, 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)
Stephan M. Blank and Andreas Taeger
Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, 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-
stoma 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, Endelomyia
Ashmead, 1898, Monsoma MacGillivray, 1908 and Gemmura 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;
Endelomyia; Monsoma; Gemmura.
1. Gimmerthal (1847) published a survey of the sawflies occurring in Livonia and
Kurland. He included (pp. 34-42) 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. pulverata Retzius, 1783, p. 72,
currently known as Monsoma pulveratum).
Current usage: type species Tenthredo guttata Fallén, 1808 (p. 105; synonymized with
T. liturata Gmelin, 1790, p. 2668, by Konow, 1905, p. 103; currently known as
Empria liturata). Designation by Rohwer (1911, p. 87).
Following Rohwer (1911, 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 Se/andria 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
D.R. 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) medullarius 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 medullarius as medullaris).
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 NV. 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 Fallén, 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
Fallén, 1808 (p. 60), which is currently placed in Taxonus.
Gimmerthal (1847) recorded Tenthredo bicolor Klug, 1817 as the type species of
‘Taxonus Meyt.’ (cited as “Taxonus, Meg. v. Mihlfeld’ 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 fulvipes A. Costa, 1882, synonymized with Tenthredo glabrata
Fallén, 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, pl. 76, fig. 6, a junior synonym of Taxonus
agrorum (Fallén, 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; BLENNOCAMPINI, CALIROINI,
Ametastegia, Endelomyia, Gemmura and Monsoma), Zombori (1981; CALIROINI,
Ametastegia, Blennocampa, Endelomyia, Monsoma and Taxonus), Viitasaari &
Vikberg (1985; BLENNOCAMPINI, CALIROINI, Ametastegia, Blennocampa, Endelomyia
and Taxonus), Taeger (1986; Ametastegia, Monsoma and Taxonus), Zhelochoytsev
(1988; BLENNOCAMPINI, CALIROINI, Ametastegia, Blennocampa, Endelomyia, Monsoma
and Taxonus), Goulet (1992; BLENNOCAMPINI, CALIROINI, Ametastegia, Endelomyia,
Gemmura, Monsoma and Taxonus), Liston (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 Fallén, 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 (1)(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 (1)(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 (1)(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 Fallén, 1808), as ruled in
(1)(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 Fallén, 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 Nematus (Cryptocampus) mucronatus Hartig, 1837;
(i) Caliroa A. Costa, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Caliroa sebetia A. Costa, 1859 (a junior synonym of Tenthredo (Allantus)
cinxia Klug, 1816);
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) liturata Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Tenthredo liturata
(senior subjective synonym of Tenthredo guttata Fallén, 1808, the type
species of Poecilostoma Dahlbom, 1835);
(b) phyllocolpa Viitasaari & Vikberg, 1985, as published in the binomen
Blennocampa phyllocolpa (junior objective synonym of Tenthredo (Allantus)
pusilla Klug, 1816, the type species of Blennocampa Hartig, 1837);
(c) amerinae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cynips amerinae
(senior subjective synonym of Nematus (Cryptocampus) medullarius 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 Fallén, 1808, as published in the binomen Tenthredo glabrata
(senior subjective synonym of Ametastegia fulvipes A. Costa, 1882, the type
species of Ametastegia A. Costa, 1882);
(f) aethiops Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Tenthredo aethiops
(senior subjective synonym of Se/andria 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);
(h) mucronatus Hartig, 1837, as published 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. Liston (Daibersdorf) kindly
corrected the English. Dr F. Koch (Berlin) 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 Entomologist, 30(10): 247-257.
Benson, R.B. 1938. On the classification of sawflies (Hymenoptera Symphyta). Transactions of
the Entomological Society of London, 87(15): 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 sulle ricerche zoologiche fatte in Sardegna
durante la primavera del 1882, del Socio Orninario. Rendiconto dell’Accademia delle
Scienze Fisiche e Matematiche, 21(10): 189-201.
Costa, A. 1894. Prospetto degli imenotteri Italiani da servire prodromo 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 Insectorum, vol. 1. viii, 552 pp. Hamburg & Kilion.
Fallén, C.F. 1808. Forsok till upstallning och bestrifning 4 de i Sverige fundne Arter af
Insect-Slagtet Tenthredo Linn. Kongl. Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar, 29(1): 39-64;
29(2): 98-124.
Gimmerthal, B.A. 1847. Einiges iiber die Blattwespen im Allgemeinen, nebst einer Uebersicht
der Gattungs-Charactere, und die bis hiezu in Liv- und Curland beobachteten Arten
mit einigen Bemerkungen dazu. Arbeiten des Naturforschenden Vereins zu Riga, 1(1):
23-60.
Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linné 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. Jn: 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 besonderer Berticksichtigung ihres
Larvenzustandes und ihres Wirkens in Waldern 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 zusammengestellt.
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. Jn: Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera
Insectorum, vol. 29. 176 pp. Brussels.
Krombein, K.V., Hurd, P.D., Smith, 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 définissant la nouvelle tribu
des Dulophanini (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae). Revue Frangaise d’Entomologie,
(N.S.)20(1-2): 45-50.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 127
Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, A. [1828]. Tenthréde, Tenthredo. Pp. 566-S77 in
Latreille, P.A., Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau, Serville, A. & Guérin, F.E., Encyclopédie
Meéthodique, 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). Abhandlungen zur Larvalsystematik der Insekten, 1: 1-389.
MacGillivray, A.D. 1908. Emphytinae — new genera and species and synonymical notes.
Canadian Entomologist, 40(10): 365-369.
Miiller, O.F. 1776. 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: 211-242.
Retzius, A.J. 1783. 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. II]. 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 paldarktischer Allantinae
(Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Beitrdge 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. Notulae 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):
443-450.
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 S5BD, 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 rustica 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 Entomologisches Institut, 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, 1763 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; TENTHREDINIDAE; 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 ‘7. rusticus 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], pl. 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 montana (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 rustica Linnaeus from Linnaeus’s collection in London and
noted:
‘There are 5 (females) of the species now known as Macrophya rustica (Linné):
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, nec 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, Linné places the species in a group by itself
under the heading “Antennis subclavatis, articulatis’, with the word ‘nec’ 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 Linné
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 ‘nec’ in
1767 is not sufficient evidence for saying that Linné 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 (Linné, 1758), and Macrophya rustica
auct., nec Linné, therefore becomes Macrophya montana (Scop.) (Tenthredo
montana Scopoli 1763)’.
5. On the basis of Linnaeus’s (1758) description, Malaise & Benson (1934) referred
the name Tenthredo rustica Linnaeus, 1758 to a species of 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. blanda Fabricius, 1775, T. albicincta Schrank, 1776, T. albipuncta Fallén,
1804, T. ribis Schrank, 1781, T. neglecta Klug, 1814 (currently Macrophya annulata
(Geoffroy, 1785)), T. strigosa Fabricius, 1798 (currently M. rufipes (Linnaeus, 1758)),
T. punctum Fabricius, 1781 (currently M. punctumalbum (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 of 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, articulis 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 ‘7. rusticus Linn. Pz. 64.10° in the sense of Panzer
({1799]), ie. as a species of Macrophya.
8. The description of Tenthredo montana Scopoli, 1763 (pp. 276-277, 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. nec. Linnaeus = Macrophya montana
(Scopoli). By subsequent designation by Westwood, 1840’; and Abe & Smith (1991)
recorded: ‘Tenthredo rusticus auct., nec. 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.
11. 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,
1763 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 Linné, 1758’; “Arge rustica (Linné) [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 | 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 (1)(a) above
Tenthredo montana Scopoli, 1763;
(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 (1)(b) above.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr I.M. Kerzhner (St Petersburg), Prof Dr H. Pschorn-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 (Daibersdorf) 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 of 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. 149. Royal Entomological Society of London, London.
Blank, S.M. et al. 1998. Checkliste der Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera:
Symphyta). Pp. 13-34 in Taeger, A. & Blank, S.M. (Eds.), Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands
¥ (Hymenoptera: Symphyta). Kommentierte Bestandsaufnahme. Goecke & Evers, Keltern.
Chevin, H. 1995. Biologie de Macrophya punctumalbum (Linné) (Hymenoptera: Symphyta,
Tenthredinidae). L’Entomologiste, Paris, 51(6): 279-285.
Dahlbom, G. 1835. Conspectus Tenthredinidum, Siricidum et Oryssinorum Scandinaviae, 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.M. 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 (Pseudomacrophya) nizamii]. Vestnik Zoologii, Kiev, 5:
69-74.
Forster, J.R. 1771. Novae Species Insectorum Centuria 1. 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 Society of Canada, 167:
135-138.
Gussakoyskij, V.V. 1935. Insectes Hyménopteéres, Chalastrogastra 1. Fauna SSSR, Moskva,
Leningrad, 2(1): 1-453.
Inomata, R. & Shinohara, A. 1993. Macrophya koreana (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae) found
in Japan, with the first record of host plant. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology 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 (Hymenoptera,
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-Duché de
Luxembourg (Hyménoptéres: Tenthredinidae). 5. Conclusions générales. Bulletin de la
Société 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
Abhandlungen 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 Abhandlungen
Staatliches Museum fiir Tierkunde in Dresden, 41 (Supplement): 23—S9.
Naito, T. 1978. Chromosomes of the genus Macrophya Dahlbom (Hymenoptera,
Tenthredinidae). Kontyti, Tokyo, 46(3): 470-479.
Panzer, G.W.F. [1799]. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten, vol.
64, pls. 1-24. Felssecker, Niirnberg.
Quinlan, J. & Gauld, I.D. 1981. Symphyta (except 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. Entomologia 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 Biologie, Verbreitung und Gefahrdung der
Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Pp. 49-135 in Taeger, A. &
Blank, S.M. (Eds.), Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera: Symphyta).
Kommentierte Bestandsaufnahme. Goecke & Evers, Keltern.
Wei, M. & Ma, L. 1997. Five new species of 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.
Zhelochoytsey, 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 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
134 Bulletin of 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 Entomology, American Museum of Natural History,
Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A.
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to 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 (1856, 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 (pl. 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 Melikertes; 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 of 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, pl. 3, fig. 4), should be designated as neotype.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimen for
the nominal species 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.
Cockerell, 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 Research, 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 11th 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. Biogeography and taxonomy of honeybees. xxii, 284 pp. Springer Verlag,
Berlin.
Winston, M.L. & Michener, C.D. 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 Péron, 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@nmnh.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 Péron, 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, 1820) as the type species of Otaria. At present Phoca
jubata Schreber, [1776] is the type species of Otaria and the name Ofaria is a senior
subjective synonym of Eumetopias. The four genera Arctocephalus, Callorhinus,
Otaria and Eumetopias are all placed in the family OTARMDAE 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. Péron (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 Ofaria, among them Phoca
ursina Linnaeus, 1758, P. leonina Molina, 1782 (nec P. /eonina 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 Péron’s name for eared seals as ‘Les
Phoques 4 oreilles extérieures (Otaries. Péron)’ 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 Ofoes 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 ‘Arctocéphale’. 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, pl. 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
Arctocephalus, which is available from this authorship and date. F. Cuvier wrote (p.
553): ‘Le type de ce genre nous est offert par ours marin, Phoca ursina, Linn. ...’. He
listed only one species (p. 554): “L’Arctocéphale oursin: Arctocephalus ursinus; Ursus
marinus Steller, Novi comment. petrop., Il, p. 331; Buff., Suppl. 6, pl. 47’, and noted
that ‘Steller a trouvé cette éspéce dans les iles Aleutiennes, et on pourrait croire
qu'elle a été retrouvée par Pernetti aux iles Malouines [Malvinas or Falklands], et par
Forster au Cap’. Clearly he believed there was only one species of Arctocephalus 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 Arctocephalus from F. Cuvier’s (1824) use
of the name “Arctocéphale’, 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, pl. 68; 1859b, p. 108) identified and described as
Arctocephalus 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
Arctocephalus 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
checklists 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], pl. 85 [1775]), the South African fur seal, be designated the type
species of 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 of 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 Oraria pusilla Schreber, [1775]) by monotypy
and original designation. Published April 1866.
(2) Arctophoca Peters, 1866 (p. 276), type species Otaria philippii Peters, 1866 by
monotypy (described as a subgenus of Ozaria Péron, 1816). This description appeared
in the May issue of the Monatsberichte der Kéniglich Akademie der Wissenschaften 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) Gypsophoca Gray, 1866c (p. 236), type species Arctocephalus cinereus Gray,
1866a (a junior synonym of Ofaria forsteri Lesson, 1828) by monotypy (described as
a subgenus of 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
Callorhinus Gray, 1859 on the assumption that Callorhinus was preoccupied by
Callirhinus Blanchard, 1850 (a beetle genus) and Callirhinus 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 Ovoes 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 Péron (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 Oroes would certainly create confusion. We propose
that the name Otoes Fischer, 1817 be suppressed.
10. The name Oraria Péron, 1816 relates to sea lions, not fur seals. It is the basis
of the family OTARIDAE Gray, 1825, which includes Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826
and Callorhinus Gray, 1859, as well as Otaria. Palmer (1904, p. 486) designated
Otaria leonina ‘Péron’ (i.e. Phoca leonina Molina, 1782, p. 282, a junior primary
homonym of P. /eonina 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
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 139
species is that of Phoca byronia de Blainville, 1820a, pp. 287, 300; 1820b, p. 419,
fig. 3). However, recognition of an earlier type species designation for Otaria by Gill
(1866, p. 7) of Phoca jubata Schreber, [1776] would render the name Oraria a senior
subjective synonym of Eumetopias Gill, 1866 (p. 7), which is in use for the
monospecific northern sea lion genus. The genus Eumetopias was based on Arcto-
cephalus monteriensis Gray, 1859c (p. 358, pl. 72), a junior synonym of Phoca jubata
Schreber, [1776] (p. 300, pl. 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 Otaria 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 Ofoes 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
Arctocephalus 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 Otaria
Péron, 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 (1)(b) above Phoca pusilla
Schreber, [1775];
(b) Callorhinus Gray, 1859 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Phoca ursina Linnaeus, 1758;
(c) Otaria Péron, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under
the plenary powers in (1)(c) above Phoca leonina Molina, 1782 (invalid
senior subjective synonym of Phoca byronia de Blainville, 1820);
(d) Eumetopias Gill, 1866 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Arctocephalus monteriensis Gray, 1859 (a junior subjective synonym of
Phoca jubata 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 Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826);
(b) ursina Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phoca ursina (specific
name of the type species of Callorhinus Gray, 1859);
(c) byronia de Blainville, 1820, as published in the binomen Phoca byronia (first
available subjective synonym of Phoca leonina Molina, 1782, the type
species of Otaria Péron, 1816);
(d) jubata Schreber, [1776], as published in the binomen Phoca jubata (senior
subjective synoym of Arctocephalus monteriensis Gray, 1859, the type
species of Eumetopias Gill, 1866);
(4) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the following names:
(a) Otoes Fischer, 1817, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999
(b) Halarctus Gill, 1866 (a junior objective synonym of Arctocephalus F.
Cuvier, 1826); ;
(c) Callotaria Palmer, 1892 (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
(Callorhinus 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 Survey 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, pls. 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 Naturelle, 91: 286-300.
Blainville, H.D. de. 1820b. Explication de la partie de la planche qui a rapport au Mémoire sur
quelques espéces de phoques, inséré dans la cahier d’Octobre de cette année. Journal de
Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire Naturelle, 91: 419.
Cabrera, A. 1958. Catalogo de los mamiferos de América del Sur. Revista del Museo Argentino
de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia’, Zoologia, 4: 1-308.
Corbet, G.B. 1978. The mammals of the Palaearctic 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 espéces de phoques et des groupes génériques entre lesquels elles
se partagent. Mémoires du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, 11: 174-214.
Cuvier, F. 1826. Phoque. Pp. 540-559 in Cuvier, F. (Ed.), Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles,
vol. 39 (Perrog — Phogq). Levrault, Strasbourg; Le Normant, Paris.
Cuvier, G. 1817. Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation, pour servir de base a
l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction a l’anatomie comparée, vol. 1. xxxvili, 540
pp. Déterville, Paris.
Ellerman, J.R. & Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals
1758 to 1946. 810 pp. British Museum, London.
Ellerman, 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. Mémoires de la Société Impériale des
Naturalistes de Moscou, 5: 357-446.
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 Steller, 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 (Oraria 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 seals 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: 156.
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: \—-984.
Péron, F. 1816. Histoire de ’éléphant marin, ou phoque a trompe [Phoca proboscidae, N.}:
péches des Anglois aux Terres Australes. Pp. 32-66 in: Voyage de découvertes aux Terres
Australes, exécuté sur les Corvettes le Géographe, le Naturaliste, et la Goélette le Casuarina,
pendant les années 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803 et 1804., vol. 2. 471 pp. L’Imprimerie Royale,
Paris.
Peters, W. 1866. Uber die Ohrenrobben (Seeléwen und Seebiiren), Otariae, insbesondere tiber
die in den Sammlungen zu Berlin befindlichen Arten. Monatsberichte der K6niglich
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1866: 261-281.
Schreber, J.C.D. von. [1775], [1776]. Die Sdugethiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit
Beschreibungen, vol. 2, part 13, pp. 223-230, pls. 81-92 ([1775]); vol. 3, part 17, pp.
290-312, pls. 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.
Steller, G.W. 1751. De bestiis marinis. Novi Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis
Petropolitanae, 2: 289-398.
Trouessart, E.-L. 1897, 1904. Catalogus mammalium tam viventium 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 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 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, 233-235; 56: 48-49)
Wilhelm Foissner
Universitat Salzburg, Institut fiir Zoologie, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, A-5020, Austria
The reply by Heckman (BZN 56: 48-49) 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 Strobilidium
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
Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 1887 are of a similar detail and quality, while the
description of Trichoda cometa Miller, 1773 is, understandably, much more
incomplete and hardly assignable. Accordingly, Kahl’s preference for Stokes’s junior
synonym was a mistake. This is why I 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 Strombidium
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 Informationsberichte 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.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 143
Comments 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 HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE
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 of 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 Muséum 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 or
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 Hydrobia acuta’, and a heading on p. 7 of the paper as ‘A neotype for
Hydrobia acuta’. On entering the literature 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, Universita di Siena, Via Mattioli 4,
I-53100 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 (Draparnaud, 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, pl. 4, figs. 5-8). Comparison of Dollfus’s figures with
those of Boeters (1984, pl. 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, pl. 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
gréssere der beiden Gehduse zeigt deutlich tiefere Nahte als das kleinere Gehduse;
man kann damit das grdssere Gehduse der vorstehend von mir gekennzeichneten
Species 1 und das kleinere Gehause der Species 2 zuordnen’, but in the caption to pl.
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 2mm) 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, pl. 4, figs. 5—8)
had already reached a clear idea of the identity of H. acuta and considered it a species
distinct from H. ventrosa, 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 H. 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 Turbo 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 7. 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 Radoman’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 Hoeksema,
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 cylindrical penis with a fan-like apex.
It is unfortunate that Radoman (1977), having studied the anatomy of a number
of hydrobiid taxa, did not fix the identity of Hydrobia 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 V. ventrosa. 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 of Hydrobia 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 Hydrobia and Ventrosia.
In reply to Naggs et al. (their comment above), we believe that the title ‘A proposed
neotype for Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud, 1805)’ of our (1998) publication, and the
section heading (p. 7, ‘A neotype for Hydrobia 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
Hydrobia 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 Hydrobia 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
differentiation 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 Prévost, near Palavas-les-Flots, Hérault,
France.
Additional references
Mars, P. 1966. Recherches sur quelques étangs du littoral méditerréen frangais et sur leur
faunes malacologiques. Vie Milieu Suppl., 20: 1-359.
Paladilhe, A. 1870. Etude monographique sur les Paludinidées frangaises. Annales de Mala-
cologie, 1: 167-243.
Paladilhe, A. 1874. Monographie de nouveau genre Peringia, suivie des descriptions d’espéces
nouvelles de Paludinées francaises. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (6, Zoologie et
Paléontologie), 1: 1-38.
Comments on the proposed precedence of the specific name of Crotalus ruber Cope,
1892 over that of Crotalus exsul Garman, 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. exsu/, 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 and 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. exsul 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. exsu/ but this arrangement of names was not long perpetuated.
(5) Bayard H. Brattstrom
Department of Biological Science, McCarthy Hall 282, California State University,
Fullerton, 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
stability of the nomenclature be maintained and that the name C. ruber be given
precedence over C. exsu/ 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. Ay. de los Barrios s/n, 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 sagitta; 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 ae
of Homonymy.
(2) The name Trachelocerca Ehrenberg, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species by
monotypy Vibrio sagitta Miller, 1786, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name sagitta Miller, 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 Miller,
1786, was received from Dr John O. Corliss (Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) and
Prof Wilhelm Foissner (Universitat 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 | 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], Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
zu Berlin, 1833: 316. [Issued in the serial in 1835 but published as a separate in 1834].
Trachelocerca Ehrenberg, 1840, Monatsberichte und Verhandlungen der K6niglichen
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1840: 202.
sagitta, Vibrio, Miller, 1786, Animalcula Infusoria fluviatilia et marina ..., p. 59.
152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999
OPINION 1924
Helix draparnaudi 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 (1)(a) above;
(b) 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, 1837 was received from Dr G. Manganelli & Prof F. Giusti (Universita 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-
naudi 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 | 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 draparnaldi
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 régne animal distribué d’aprés 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 dOrbigny, 1842, as published in the binomen Turrilites
gravesianus and as defined by the lectotype designated in (1)(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 (1)(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 | 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, Turrilites, de Haan, 1825, Specimen Philosophicum Inaugurale. Exhibens Mono-
graphiae Ammoniteorum et Goniatiteorum ..., p. 78.
gravesianus, Turrilites, d’Orbigny, 1842, in: Paléontologie Frangaise; Terrains Crétacés. I.
Céphalopodes, p. 596.
Hypoturrilites Dubourdieu, 1953, Bulletin du Service de la Carte Géologique de |’ Algérie, series
1 (Paléontologie), 16: 44.
tuberculatus, Turrilites, Bosc, [1802], Histoire naturelle des coquilles, vol. 5. In: Histoire
naturelle de Buffon, classée .. . d’aprés le systéme de Linné, par R. R. Castel. P. 189, pl. 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 Borner, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): spelling emended
to DASYPODAIDAE, SO removing the homonymy with pasypopIDAE 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 Borner, 1919, type genus Dasypoda Latreille, 1802 (spelling
emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Hymenoptera).
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 Dasypop1DaE Borner, 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 (1) above) (Hymenoptera).
(5
—
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 DasypopIDAE Borner, 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 Patuxent 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 | 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:
Dasypoda Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle des fourmis ..., p. 424.
DASYPODAIDAE Borner, 1919, Biologisches Zentralblatt, 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 of Andrena hirtipes Fabricius, 1793 as the
type species of the nominal genus Dasypoda Latreille, 1802:
Blanchard, E. 1840. Hyménoptéres. Jn 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 pupula Hiibner, [1831] (currently Lactura
pupula): conserved
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; Microlepidoptera; ZYGAENOIDEA;
LACTURIDAE; YPONOMEUTIDAE; PYRALIDAE; Lactura; Lactura pupula; Eustixia;
Eustixia 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 Hiibner, 1823 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Kirby (1892) Eustixia pupula Hubner, 1823;
(b) Lactura Walker, 1854 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Lactura dives Walker, 1854.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) pupula Hiibner, 1823, as published in the binomen Eustixia pupula (specific
name of the type species of Eustixia Hubner, 1823);
(b) pupula Hiibner, [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 Hiibner, [1831], as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) Mieza Walker, 1854, as suppressed in (1)(b) above.
(E
~~
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 | 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, Zutraége zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, vol. 1, p. 24.
Eustixis Hubner, [1831], Zutrage 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, Hibner, 1823, Zutrdége zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, vol. 1, p. 24.
pupula, Eustixis, Hubner, [1831], Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, vol. 3, p. 24.
The following is the reference for the designation of Eustixia pupula Hiibner, 1823 as the
type species of the nominal genus Eustixia Hiibner, 1823:
Kirby, W.F. 1892. A synoptic catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera (Moths), vol. | (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 Septoproductus Frech, 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) macrotuberculata Angiolini,
1995;
(b) Waagenoconcha Chao, 1927 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Productus humboldti d’ Orbigny, 1842.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) macrotuberculata Angiolini, 1995, as published in the binomen Waageno-
concha (Gruntoconcha) macrotuberculata (specific name of the type species
of Gruntoconcha Angiolini, 1995);
(b) humboldti d@Orbigny, 1842, as published in the binomen Productus
humboldti (specific name of the type species of Waagenoconcha Chao,
1927).
The name Septoproductus Frech, 1911 is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (1) above.
(4
~—
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 | 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 application is being
studied by a very small number of taxonomists. One of the names involved
(Gruntoconcha) 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 Paleontologia e Stratigrafia, 101: 206.
humboldti, Productus, d’Orbigny, 1842, Voyage dans |’ Amérique méridionale ..., vol. 3, part 4
(Paléontologie), p. 54.
macrotuberculata, Waagenoconcha (Gruntoconcha), Angiolini, 1995, Rivista Italiana di
Paleontologia e Stratigrafia, 101: 206.
Septoproductus Frech, 1911, in Richthofen, F. von, China, Ergebnisse eigener Reisen und darauf
gegriindeter Studien, vol. 5, p. 132.
Waagenoconcha Chao, 1927, China Geological Survey, Palaeontologia 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; TEMDAE;
Cnemidophorus neomexicanus; southwestern United States.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name perplexus Baird & Girard, 1852, as
published in the binomen Cnemidophorus perplexus, is hereby suppressed for
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Bie of
Homonymy.
(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
Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) 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).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(2) June 1999 163
Decision of the Commission
On | 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 i
Negative votes — none. t
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 Academy of
Sciences, 9(13): 230.
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 arabic
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined
and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of
publication.
Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary,
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. It would help to reduce
the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the
typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format,
preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible.
The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the
formulation of an application.
Contents — continued
OPINION 1924. Helix draparnaudi Beck, 1837 (currently Oxychilus draparnaudi;
Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved. . .
OPINION 1925. Turrilites gravesianus d’Orbigny, 1842 deer Eypahuerilites
gravesianus; Mollusca, Ammonoidea): specific name conserved and a replacement
lectotype designated; Turrilites tuberculatus Bosc, [1802] (currently Hypoturrilites
tuberculatus): placed on the Official List . Sao eam oF es taco
OPINION 1926. DAsypopIDAE Borner, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): spelling
emended to DASYPODAIDAE, so removing the homonymy with DAsyPopIDAE Gray,
1821 (Mammalia, Xenarthra)
OPINION 1927. Lactura Walker, 1854 (asco: Mecidapiera): eouserved, and the
specific name of Eustixis pupula Hiibner, [1831] (currently Lactura pe
conserved . ee eae
OPINION 1928. Waguennennche Chao, 1927 and Guntoconche Angiolini, 1995
(Brachiopoda): conserved . A
OPINION 1929. Cnemidophorus neomexicanus Lowe & Zweifel, “1952 (Reptilia,
Squamata): specific name conserved . Berns we tie
Information and instructions for authors .
152
154
156
158
160
162
164
CONTENTS
Page
Notices . a ME ae tN ee 105
The International Code of Zoolosial Nemmenclature So's” SC Se? ee Rie 107
Towards Stability in the Names ofvAnimals’ . = 3 2). 2.) Sue eee 107
General Article
Centralized access to newly published zoological names. J. Howcroft & J. Thorne . 108
Applications
Bulinus wrighti Mandahl-Barth, 1965 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conserva-
tion of the specific name. D.S. Brown, F. Naggs & V.R. Southgate. . . . . 113
Sphaerius 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,
Ametastegia 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): propased deqee of Ten-
thredo montana 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 Electrapis proava;, Insecta, “Hiymesoptee:
proposed conservation by designation of a neotype. M.S. Engel. . . . 134
Arctocephalus F. Cuvier, 1826 and Callorhinus Gray, 1859 (Mammalia, Paeipedial:
proposed conservation by the designation of Phoca pusilla Schreber, [1775] as the
type species of Arctocephalus; and Otaria Péron, 1816 and Eumetopias Gill, 1866:
proposed conservation by the designation of Phoca leonina Molina, 1782 as the
type species of Oraria. 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 Strobilidium caudatum Kahl, 1932 ,
(Ciliophora, Oligotrichida). W. Foissner. . . . 142
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 HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). F. Naggs, P.B. Mordan, D.G. Reid & K.M. babe
Giusti, G. Manganelli& M. Bodon. . . 143
On the proposed precedence of the specific name of (Gorahe ae Cape 1392 over ;
that of Crotalus exsul Garman, 1884 (Reptilia, Serpentes). S.A. Minton; R.E. ee.
Olson; W.W. Tanner; R.W. base B.H. Brattstrom; A. Ramirez-Bautista & e
UGE Spinal) scene ts ies 148
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 1923. Trachelocerca Ehrenberg (Ciliophora): authorship conserved as oe
Ehrenberg (1840), and Vibrio sagitta Miller, 1786 fixed as the type species. . . 150 _—
Printed in Great Britain bv Henry Ling Ltd.. at the Dorset Press. Dorchester. Dorset
f 5 ARR ew met
Bulletin |
FP ical
Nomenclature
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 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@nhm.ac.uk)
(http://www.iczn.org)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President
Vice-President
Executive Secretary
Members
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology)
Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca)
Prof D. J. Brothers
(South Africa; Hymenoptera)
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda)
DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer
(U.S.A.; Ichthyology)
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca)
Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus
(Germany; Arachnology)
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea)
Secretariat
Prof A. Minelli (/taly)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)
Dr V. Mahnert
(Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
(Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa)
Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda)
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera)
Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista)
Prof W.D.L.Ride(Australia; Mammalia)
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology)
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)
Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea)
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Prof S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 165
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 56, part 3 (pp. 165-224) 30 September 1999
| 4
Notices PURCHASED
| ZOOLOGY LIBR/
(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications==—=
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi-
cation but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted.
Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to
send his contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as
possible.
(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises
mainly applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals,
resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed
amendments to the Code are also published for discussion.
Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an
audience wider than some small group of specialists.
(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 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. Bachli.
(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.
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@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 (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 $110 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, clo The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.
168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999
Case 3089
Leucocytozoon (Protista, Haemosporida): proposed adoption of
Berestneff, 1904 as the author and of Leukocytozoen danilewskyi
Ziemann, 1898 as the type species
Gediminas Valkiiinas
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 (pl. 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 forme et la dimension du noyau de la capsule, absence de grains de
mélanine, la dimension et l’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 analogie aux Hémicytozoa)’. 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, 1898 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 Ziemann, 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 of 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 of Leucocytozoon to Berestneff (1904) with Leucocyto-
zoon danilewskyi (Ziemann, 1898) 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, 1898) 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 ruling 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 (1) 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, C.M. 1975. Remarks on the status of the
genus Leucocytozoon 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.
Berestneff, N. 1904. Uber das Leucocytozoon Danilewskyi. Archiv fiir Protistenkunde, 3:
376-386.
Danilewsky, B. 1889. La parasitologie comparée du sang, part 1. Nouvelles recherches sur les
parasites du sang des oiseaux. 93 pp., 3 pls. Darre, Kharkoff.
Danilewsky, B. 1890. Développement des parasites malariques dans les leucocytes des oiseaux
(Leucocytozoaires). Annales de l'Institut Pasteur, Paris, 4: 427-431.
Danilewsky, B. 1891. Ueber den Polymitus malaria. Centralblatt fiir Bakteriologie und
Parasitenkunde, 9: 397-403.
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 pls. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Hsu, C.-K., Campbell, G.R. & Levine, N.D. 1973. A check-list of the species of the genus
Leucocytozoon (Apicomplexa, Plasmodiidae). Journal of Protozoology, 20: 195-203.
Kryloy, M.V. 1994. Agents of protozoan diseases of domestic animals and of man. Vol 2, 269 pp.
Zoological Institute Press, St Petersburg. [In Russian].
Kryloy, 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 Haemamoeba d’une mésange (Parus major). Comptes Rendus
Hebdomadaires des Séances et Mémoires de la Société de Biologie, 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 and Hygiene, 11: 245-248.
Valkiiinas, G. 1997. Bird Haemosporida. Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 3-5: 1-607. [In Russian].
Wenyon, C.M. 1926. Protozoology: a manual for medical men, veterinarians and zoologists, etc., —
part 2. Bailliére, Tindall & Cox, London.
Ziemann, H. 1898. Ueber Malaria- und andere Blutparasiten nebst Anhang. Eine wirksame
Methode der Chromatin- und Blutférbung. 192 pp., 3 pls. 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
Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Departement des Arthropodes et
d Entomologie I, Case postale 6434, CH-1211 Genéve 6, Switzerland (e-mail:
peter.schwendinger@mhn.ville-ge.ch)
Jochen Martens
Institut fiir Zoologie, Johannes Gutenberg- Universitat Mainz, Saarstrasse 21,
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
Gnomulus 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. 37-40).
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, pl. 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, pl. 11,
172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999
figs. 19, 21). On the other hand, Gnomulus rostratus 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. rostratus, which were found later, were misidentified in Roewer’s collection.
Pelitnus insularis Roewer, 1927, a species now included in Gnomulus and most closely
related to G. rostratus, was not recognized as such. The penis morphology of
G. rostratus has not hitherto been studied and published.
5. Gnomulus sumatranus 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 rostratus 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, pl. 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. rostratus are dissimilar in a
number of characters. Features of the genitalia of G. sumatranus accord well with
other species (except G. rostratus and Pelitnus insularis) described under Gnomulus
and Pelitnus (now in synonymy with Gnomulus). However, G. rostratus 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 Pelitnus in the synonymy of Gnomulus and
transferred all 17 known species to the latter genus. Transferring these, and the other
species (except G. rostratus 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. rostratus 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, 1890 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:
(1) 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
sumatranus Thorell, 1981 as the type species;
iene CL
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 sumatranus Thorell, 1891;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name swmatranus
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. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, (Supplement 6) 3: 117-200.
Martens, J. 1977. Opiliones aus dem Nepal-Himalaya. III. Oncopodidae, Phalangodidae,
Assamiidae (Arachnida). Senckenbergiana 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 bekannten
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.
Sorensen, W. 1932. Descriptiones laniatorum (Arachnidorum Opilionum Subordinis) fecit
William Sorensen opus posthumum recognovit et edidit Kai L. Hendriksen. Mémoires de
l'Académie 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 Storia Naturale di Genova, (2)10: 269-383.
Thorell, T. 1891. Opilioni nuovi o poco conosciuti dell’Arcipelago Malese. Annali del Museo
Civico di Storia Naturale 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 SBD, 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
Cuma rathkii Kreyer, 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 rathkii Kroyer, 1841
as the type species of the genus Diastylis Say, 1818. At present the nominal species
Diastylis arenarius Say, 1818 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;
Diastylis 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, Calman (1912), Zimmer (1941) and Day
(1980). Zimmer (1941) suggested that the holotype of D. arenarius may have been a
specimen of Oxyurostylis smithi Calman, 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 BODOTRUDAE. 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 (Gmelin)’ 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).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 175
4. The name Diastylis 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
Diastylis, 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 Diastylis 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 Diastylis
have never been adequately defined. In order to rectify this a new type species must
be selected. I propose that Cuma rathkii Kroyer, 1841 (p. 513, pl. 5, figs. 19-22,
pl. 6, figs. 17-30) be designated as the type species. This species was referred to
Diastylis by Bate (1856, p. 451), and appears to have been the first species after D.
arenarius to have been assigned to the genus. Diastylis rathkii 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 Hornbaek’, la partie la plus sud
du Kattegat, 56°05’N, 12°28’E, Danemark et ‘tilhorer ... den gronlandske 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
Diastylis arenarius, and that the type material has since been lost. She recorded that
a diagnosis for Diastylis based on D. rathkii ‘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 Diastylis Say, 1818 and to designate Cuma rathkii Kroyer,
1841 as the type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Diastylis
Say, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Cuma
rathkii Kroyer, 1841;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name rathkii
Kroyer, 1841, as published in the binomen Cuma rathkii (specific name of the
type species of Diastylis Say, 1818).
References
Anger, K. & Valentin, C. 1976. In situ studies on the diurnal activity pattern of Diastylis
rathkei (Cumacea, Crustacea) and its importance for the ‘hyperbenthos’. Helgoldnder
Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, 28(2): 138-144.
Bacescu, M. 1992. Cumacea 2 (Fam. Nannastacidae, Diastylidae, Pseudocumatidae, Gyno-
diastylidae et Ceratocumatidae). Jn Gruner, H.-E. & Holthuis, L.B. (Eds.), Crustaceorum
Catalogus, 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:
449-465.
Calman, 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): 125-142.
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 Tidsskrift, 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 Ordnungen 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@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. 3 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
locality. 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. Ihave 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 coelehs
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 coe/ebs has been used include Corbet & Pendlebury (1956,
178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999
p. 229), Fleming (1975, p. 49, pl. 46, fig. N96; 1983, p. 51, pl. 46, fig. N96), Eliot
(1978; 1992, p. 183), D’Abrera (1985, p. 344, pl. 344) and Tsukada (1991, p. 333,
pls. 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 pls., 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 pls., 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 pls., 146, 455 figs. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur.
Fleming, W.A. 1975. Butterflies of West Malaysia and Singapore, vol. |. x, 64 pp., 54 pls., 7 figs.
Faringdon.
Fleming, W.A. 1983. Butterflies of West Malaysia and Singapore, Ed. 2. x, 148 pp., 92 pls.
Longman, Kuala Lumpur.
Niepelt, W. 1935. Eine neue Tanaecia von Sumatra. Internationale Entomologische Zeitschrift,
29(2): 13-14.
Tsukada, E. 1991. Butterflies of the South East Asian islands, part 5 (Nymphalidae 2). 576 pp.,
238 pls. 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, Universitat Ziirich, 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 S. rufifrons species group (family
DROSOPHILIDAE). The lectotype of S. rufifrons is now known to be a specimen of
S. 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 2 and corrected to 3 in Bachli,
1984, p. 254) in the Zoological Museum, Berlin, labelled: (1) ‘Kasan 20.6.71’; (2)
“Coll. H. Loew’; (3) [Loew’s handwriting] “?Drosoph. n.sp.’; (4) ‘D. rufifrons Lw. det.
Dr O. Duda’; (5) 3; (6) “D. rufifrons Lw. lectotypus, G. Bachli det. 1982’; (7) ‘Zool.
Mus. Berlin’. A recent study of the European species of the Scaptodrosophila
rufifrons-group (see Papp, Racz & Biachli, 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).
180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999
4. The specific names of Scaptodrosophila rufifrons (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 S. 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. /ebanonensis 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), Mergot et al. (1994),
Franzen (1996), Gillies & Hardy (1997) and Maca (1997). The name S. /ebanonensis
has appeared in Albalat & Gonzalez-Duarte (1993), Kwiatowski, Skarecky, Bailey &
Ayala (1994), Tamura, Toba, Park & Aotsuka (1996), Herrewege & David (1997) and
Remsen & DeSalle (1998). :
5. Recognition that the lectotype of Scaptodrosophila rufifrons (Loew, 1873)
designated by me (Bachli, 1982) is a specimen of S. /ebanonensis (Wheeler, 1949) as
always understood means that the name S. rufifrons becomes formally a senior
subjective synonym of S. /ebanonensis. The name S. rufifrons would become valid for
the species currently known as S. /ebanonensis, and a new name would be required for
S. 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. 1 propose that
the lectotype of S. 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 /ebanonensis, 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) Kfiskunsagi] N. P.: Kunfehérto, Morus alba kicsorgo nedvén [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, 1873 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;
(b) 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
lebanonensis and D. immigrans: interspecies comparisons. Gene, 126: 171-178.
Bachli, G. 1982. On the type material of Palearctic species of Drosophilidae (Diptera). Beitrdge
zur Entomologie (Berlin), 32(2): 289-301.
Bachli, G. 1984. Die Drosophiliden-Typen der Dipterensammlung des Zoologischen Museums
in Berlin. Mitteilungen des Zoologischen Museums Berlin, 60(2): 229-261.
Buzzati-Traverso, A. 1943. Morfologia, citologia e biologia di due nuove specie di Drosophila
(Diptera Acalyptera). Rendiconti del Instituto Lombardo di Scienze e Letteri, 77: 37-49.
Duda, O. 1934, 1935. Periscelidae, Astiidae, Aulacogastridae, Curtonotidae, Diastatidae,
Camillidae und Drosophilidae. Jn Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der palaearktischen
Region, vol. 6, part 1. Pp. 1-64 (1934); pp. 65-118 (1935).
Franzen, J. 1996. Essigfliegen (Diptera: Drosophilidae) aus einem Hausgarten in K6ln.
Decheniana, 35 (Beihefte): 459-464.
Gillis, J.E.M. & Hardy, I.C.W. 1997. Nematode parasitism in a northern European drosoph-
ilid community. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 84: 275-291.
Gross, H. & Christian, E. 1994. Drosophilid communities along an urban gradient across
Vienna. Zeitschrift fiir Okologie und Naturschutz, 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. Phylogeny of Drosophila and
related genera inferred from the nucleotide sequence of the Cu, Zn Sod gene. Journal of
Molecular Evolution, 38: 443-454.
Loew, H. 1873. Diptera nova, in Pannonia inferiori et in confinibus Daciae regionibus a Ferd.
Kowarzio capta. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 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.
Mergot, 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
Schweizerischen 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 and 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 of 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 1UG, U.K. (e-mail: Gareth.Jones@bristol.ac.uk)
Elizabeth M. Barratt
Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London
NWI 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, pl. 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 ‘la pipistrelle’. These were
Daubenton (1759, p. 381, pl. 1, fig. 3), Buffon (1760, p. 129, pl. 19, fig. 1) and Pennant
(1771, p. 370). Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803, pp. 53-54), also citing Daubenton (1759)
and Buffon (1760), noted that at that time there were seven pipistrelle specimens (nos.
113-119) 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 & Griffith, 1986), and the species is the type species by
monotypy of the genus Pipistrellus Kaup, 1829 (pp. 98, 188).
2. Leach (1825, p. 559, pl. 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 Zoological Journal). 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 Vespertilio 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. pipistrellus|. 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. Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774) has traditionally been considered to
refer to a single biological species and Leach’s name pygmaeus has long been treated
as a synonym of pipistrellus. However, Jones & Parijs (1993) showed the existence of
two distinct ‘phonic types’, distinguished by their ultrasonic 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 5 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 hias 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 cails.
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 Vespertilio 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 1 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, 1774 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, 1774;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) pipistrellus Schreber, 1774, 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, 1829);
(b) 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 Royal 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.
Buffon, G.L.L. de. 1760. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére, 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. Mémoire sur les chauve-souris. Histoire de l’'Académie 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 pls. British Museum, London.
186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999
Ellerman, J.R. & Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals
1758 to 1946. 810 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1803. Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum National d'Histoire
Naturelle. 272 pp. Paris.
Gray, J.E. 1843. List of the specimens of Mammalia in the collection of the British Museum.
xxviii, 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.
Kalko, E.K.V. 1995. Insect pursuit, prey capture and echolocation in pipistrelle bats
(Microchiroptera). Animal Behaviour, 50: 861-880.
Kaup, J.J. 1829. Skizzirte Entwickelungs-Geschichte und Natiirliches System der Europdischen
Thierwelt ... Erster Thiel (welcher die Vogelscugethiere und Vogel, nebst Andeutung der
Enstehung der letzteren aus Amphibien enthdilt). 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-S61.
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
London, 263B: 1495-1499.
Pennant, T. 1771. Synopsis of quadrupeds. xxv, 382 pp. Chester.
Schreber, J.C.D. yon. 1774. Die Sdugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen,
vol. 1. 190 pp., 62 pls. 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 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 187
Comment on the proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and
Paludina desmarestii Prévost, 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
Muséum National d'Histoire 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
Euchilus. 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 Prévost, 1821 to be the type species of
Euchilus (cf. para. 1 of the application) and treat it as a synonym of Svalioa. 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 pl. 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 with 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-Paleontolékom Muzeju u Zagrebu | Katalog der im Geologisch-paldontologischen
Museum in Zagreb aufbewahrten Originale von Artentypen. 186 pp., 2 pls., 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 HyDROoBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta,
Coleoptera) to HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca)
(Case 3087; see BZN 55: 139-145; 56: 56-63, 143-148)
T. Wilke, G.M. Davis and G. Rosenberg
The Academy of 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 Hydrobia 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 Hydrobia 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 Hydrobia, 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
Hydrobia, 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 HyDROBIDAE 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 Hydrobia s.|. should be subdivided into three genera (or subgenera):
Hydrobia s.s., containing at least three species, including H. acuta (sensu Radoman,
1977); Ventrosia containing at least four species, including V. 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 Hydrobia 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 Hydrobia 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
(A. 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 hammerférmige Bursa’
[differs ... by its sack-like and not hammer-like bursa]. Moreover, all four species
listed by Boeters potentially belong to different genera or subgenera: H. procera
Paladilhe, 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
(Paladilhe, 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
genitalia (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
MOITESSIERIDAE and HYDROBIIDAE, V. ventrosa 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 Prévost 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 ulvae, 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. ulvae 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 stagnorum 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 Prévost 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 impossibility 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 westeuropdische 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
Miller, 1867, with which some would replace it, was described from a single, grossly
deformed, individual of the species that Miller called Alona rostrata, 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 Miller 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 rectirostris. 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 stability.
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
Fléssner, 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 of Disparalona, would be welcomed
by students of the Branchiopods.
Additional reference
Fléssner, D. 1972. Krebstiere, Crustacea. Kiemen- 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 Schénherr, 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 Phytobius Dejean,
1835 (p. 282) on the grounds that this name, first published by Schénherr in 1833,
‘has ever since been used in that [Dejean’s] sense’ and that ‘it is doubtful whether it
was Schénherr’s intention to introduce a replacement name for Hydaticus’.
2. Phytobius Schénherr, 1833, as rightly pointed out by O’Brien & Wibmer (1982),
is a replacement name for Hydaticus Schénherr, 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 (Schénherr, 1833, p. 20) replaced Hydaticus Schénherr, 1825 with Phytobius,
attributing this name to Schmidt, as also did Dejean (1835). Nonetheless, it is clear
that the author is Schénherr 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), Schénherr’s (1833) statement that the type species of Phytobius is
Rhynchaenus velutus Beck, 1817 cannot be accepted under modern rules.
3. It cannot be claimed that Schénherr did not give a reason for replacing his
Hydaticus ‘in terms of the modern Code’ (para. 2 of Silfverberg’s application). The
publication by Schénherr (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 curculionidum), 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, Schénherr ([1835],
p. 458, note) wrote: ‘Nomen Hydaticus alii generi inter Hydrocantharos (Dyticus
fulvus, Hybneri, stagnalis et transyersalis) dudum a Cel. Leach usitatum’. This
reference to the prior use of the name Hydaticus by Leach clearly means that
Phytobius Schénherr, 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 Dejfean] Cat[alogue]’ implicitly followed the nomenclature of
Schénherr (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, 1787 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 Schénherr, 1833.
8. In addition, several authors not mentioned by Silfverberg (e.g. Colonnelli, 1986;
Tempére & Péricart, 1989; McNamara, 1991; Morris, 1991; Abbazzi & Osella,
1992; Strejéek, 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 Phyrtobius in the original sense (i.e. that of
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 193
Schénherr, 1833) in important publications issued after that by O’Brien & Wibmer
(1982). It can be safely affirmed that the current usage of the name Phytobius is not
in the sense of Dejean (1835) as modified by Thomson, as incorrectly stated by
Silfverberg, but in the sense of Schénherr (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): 267-414.
Abbazzi, P., Colonnelli, E., Masutti, L. & Osella, G. 1995. Coleoptera Polyphaga XVI
(Curculionoidea). Jn: Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds.). Checklist delle specie
della fauna Italiana, 61. 68 pp. Calderini, Bologna.
Blatchley, W.S. & Leng, C.W. 1916. Rhynchophora or weevils of North Eastern America. 682
pp. Nature Publishing Co., Indianapolis.
Bordoni, A. 1995. J Coleotteri del Padule di Fucecchio. 229 pp. Centro di ricerca,
documentazione e promozione del Padule di Fucecchio, Pistoia.
Burakowski, B., Mroczkowski, M. & Stefanska, J. 1997. Katalog fauny Polski. Czes¢ XXIII,
tom 21. Chrzaszcze Coleoptera. Ryjkowce — Curculionidae, czes¢ 3. Nr. 56’ Katalogu fauny
Polski’. 307 pp., 1 pl. 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.). Water beetles of China, 1: 389-408.
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). Fragmenta Entomologica, 19(1): 155-168.
Dieckmann, L. & Behne, L. 1994. Familie: Curculionidae. Pp. 246-300 in: Lohse, G.A. &
Lucht, W.H. (Eds.). Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. 3. Supplementband mit 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 Entomological Society, 23(4): 387-480.
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, 1-455.
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
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Entomology Contribution no. 862,
Gainesville.
Podlussany, A. 1996. Magyarorszag ormanyosalkata bogarainak fajlistaja (Coleoptera:
Curculionoidea). Folia Entomologica Hungarica, 57: 197-225.
Poole, R.W. & Gentili, P. (Eds.). 1996. Nomina insecta nearctica. A check list of the insects of
North America. Volume 1: Coleoptera, Strepsiptera. 827 pp. Entomological Information
Services, Rockville.
Schénherr, C.J. [1835]. Genera et species curculionidum, cum synonymia hujus familiae. Species
novae aut hactenus minus cognitae, descriptionibus a Dom. Leonardo Gyllenhal, C.H.
Boheman, et entomologis aliis, vol. 3, part 1. 505 pp. Roret, Paris; Fleischer, Lipsiae.
Strejéek, J. 1993. Curculionidae: in Jelinek, J. (Ed.). Check-list of Czechoslovak Insects IV
(Coleoptera). Folia Heyrovskyana. Supplementum 1. 172 pp. Picka, Praha.
Tempére, G. & Péricart, J. 1989. Faune de France. 74. Coléoptéres Curculionidae. Quatriéme
partie. Compléments aux trois volumes d'Adolphe Hoffmann. Corrections, additions et
répertoire. 534 pp. Fédération Frangaise des Sociétés de Sciences Naturelles, Paris.
(2) Miguel A. Alonso Zarazaga
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), José Gutiérrez Abascal 2,
E-28006 Madrid, Spain
Christopher H.C. Lyal
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, 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 of Phytobius Schén-
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 Schénherr (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. velatus. Rhynch. id. Beck.’. In Latin, ‘Nob.’ is an abbreviation of “Nobis’
(‘of us’, using the plural as a sign of modesty, thus ‘of Schénherr’), the word ‘olim’
means ‘formerly’ and was the usual way Schénherr 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 Schénherr, [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. Schénherr 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 Phytobius Schmidt with Campylirhynchus Dejean,
1821 as a junior synonym, including (among others) species previously placed by
Schonherr (1825, col. 583) in Hydaticus, and heading the list with velatus Germar.
The attribution to Schmidt, and the inclusion of ve/atus, suggest strongly that Dejean
was using Phytobius in the sense of Schonherr (1833). This is borne out by Schoénherr
(1835, p. 458), who also included Campylirhynchus Dejean as a junior synonym of
Phytobius. Phytobius Dejean, 1835 is therefore the same as Phytobius Schénherr,
1833 and Phytobius Schénherr, 1835. The type of Phytobius Schénherr, 1833 is
correctly Rhynchaenus myriophylli Gyllenhal, 1813, since this was the type species
of the replaced Hydaticus. Consequently, this is also the type of Phytobius
“‘Dejean, 1835’, and the subsequent type designation by Thomson (1859) of Curculio
quadrituberculatus Fabricius is incorrect.
3. O’Brien & Wibmer (1982, p. 175) pointed out the primacy of Phytobius
Schénherr, 1833 over Phytobius 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 Phytobius 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 Phytobius Dejean, 1835 was a junior
homonym of Phytobius Schonherr, 1833, and also placed it in synonymy with
Pelenomus, believing that Phytobius Dejean and Phytobius Schénherr, 1833 were
different taxa.
4. Phytobius Schénherr, 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 Phytobius 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 PHyYTOBIINI Gistel, 1856 (p. 370; published as
PHYTOBIIDAE), which is the first available name for the tribe where both Phytobius
Schonherr, 1833 and Pelenomus are currently placed, has as type genus Phytobius
Schénherr, 1833, not Phytobius 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 Curculio quadrituberculatus 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 Sch6énherr, 1825
(col. 586; type species Curculio pericarpius Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation
by Westwood (1838, p. 38)). RAinoncus Schoénherr, 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
Schénherr, 1833.
8. We consider that the suppression of Phytobius Schonherr, 1833 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
Schénherr, 1833 (replacement name for Hydaticus Schénherr, 1825) (gender:
masculine), type species by original designation for Hydaticus, Rhynchaenus
myriophylli Gyllenhal, 1813, a subjective synonym of Curculio leucogaster
Marsham, 1802;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name /eucogaster
Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Curculio 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
Curculionoidea (excepting Scolytidae Latreille, 1807, and Platypodidae Shuckard, 1840).
Anderson, R.S. 1997. Weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea, 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. Enumeratio 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 elatinacées, plantes-h6tes méconnues pour Nanophyes sahlbergi (Sahl) et
Pelenomus olssoni (Isr.) (Col., Curculionidae). Bulletin de la Société entomologique de
France, 97(1): 65-68.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 197
Egoroy, 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,
systematics and biology of freshwater invertebrates. Academy of Sciences, USSR,
Vladivostok. [In Russian].
Gistel, J. 1856. Die Mysterien 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.
Coleopterist, 3(3): 86-87.
Westwood, J.O. 1838. Synopsis of the genera of British insects. Jn: Westwood, J.O.
An introduction to the modern classification of insects. 587 pp. Longman, London.
(3) H. Silfverberg
Zoological Museum, P.O. Box 17, 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 Schénherr in 1833. The commenters rely heavily on
subsequent works by Schénherr. 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 Schénherr’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 Rhynchaenus 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
Schénherr 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
AUGOCHLORINI Beebe, 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
Oxystoglossa Smith, 1853 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 Sclenopsis 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 S. 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 Solenopsis 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) (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: 34-41)
(1) I.M.Kerzhner
Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1,
St Petersburg 199034, 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
Geologie 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] flavus 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 of 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 planiceps 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 flavus, 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 B. 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 1846 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
Scientiarum Indo-Neérlandicae, vol. 8. 88 pp.
Bleeker, P. 1860b. Dertiende Bijdrage tot de kennis der Vischfauna van Borneo. Acta
Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Indo-Neérlandicae, 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,
1778 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 Born, 1778, as published in the binomen Trochus turbinatus
(specific name of the type species of Osilinus Philippi, 1847);
(b) constricta. Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Monodonta
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) Trochocochlea Mérch, 1852 (a junior objective synonym of Osilinus
Philippi, 1847);
(b) Caragolus Monterosato, 1884 (a junior objective synonym of Osilinus
Philippi, 1847 and of Trochocochlea Morch, 1852).
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 (Muséum 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 | 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 | March 1999
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:
Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885, Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paléontologie conchyliologique,
p. 820.
Caragolus Monterosato, 1884, Nomenclatura generica e specifica di alcune conchiglie
mediterranee, p. 43.
constricta, Monodonta, Lamarck, 1822, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 7
(Histoire des mollusques), p. 36.
Osilinus Philippi, 1847, Zeitschrift fiir Malakozoologie, 4: 19-20.
Trochocochlea Morch, 1852, Catalogus conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso d’Aguirra &
Gadea Comes de Yoldi ..., part 1, p. 154.
turbinatus, Trochus, Born, 1778, Rerum Naturalium 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 Me sie
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, 1818 is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (1) 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 11
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 | 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 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.
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) Thiele, 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.
Campeloma 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, 1860 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, 1860 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
often-cited genus Holospira is the correct one; the reasoning is well laid out in the
original proposal’. :
Decision of the Commission
On 1 March 1999 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 55: 88. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1999
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 Cy/lindrella 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, Cylindrella, Menke, 1847, Zeitschrift fiir Malakozoologie, 1847(1): 2.
Holospira Martens, 1860, in Albers, J.C., Die Heliceen, nach natiirlicher Vervandtschaft
systematisch 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
Official 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 | December 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 55: 15. 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 Official 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. Jn:
Voyage dans la Russie méridionale et. la Crimée, par la Hongrie, la Valachie et la Moldavie,
exécuté en 1837 ..., vol. 3, p. 731.
caucasius, Scorpio, Fischer von Waldheim, 1813, Zoognosia tabulis synopticis illustrata ..., 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 Hoffmanniellius 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 Hoffmanniellius 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 Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de México, 2(4): 406.
210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999
Hoffmanniellius Mello-Leitao, 1934, Annaes da Academia Brasileira de Sciencias, 6(2): 80.
Paruroctonus Werner, 1934, Scorpiones. Jn: H.G. Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen 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
Hoffmann, 1931:
Gertsch, W.J. & Soleglad, M.E. 1966. American Museum Novitates, 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
aequinoctialis;
(b) 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, 1794, 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, 1763 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 (1)(a) above;
(b) quadristriata| Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Cicada
quadristriata and as suppressed in (1)(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 of 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, 1794 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 | 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, 1763, Entomologia carniolica, p. 132.
clavicornis, Cicada, Fabricius, 1794, Ryngota. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta ...,
vol. 4, p. 41.
quadristriata, Cicada, Gmelin, 1790, Caroli a Linné Systema 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. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les
classes des crustacés, des arachnides, et des insectes, p. 434.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999 213
OPINION 1936
Thamnotettix nigropictus Stal, 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 Stal, 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 published
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, redigées par Victor de
Motschulsky, vol. 8, p. 111. i
nigropictus, Thamnotettix, Stal, 1870, Ofversigt af Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens
Forhandlingar, 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 Official 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 Pléckensteinské. 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 | 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, Corisa, Fieber, 1848, Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de
Moscou, 21: 530.
propinqua, Corisa, Fieber, 1860, Die Europdischen Hemiptera, part 1, p. 99.
The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Corisa propinqua Fieber,
1860:
Jansson, A. 1986. Acta Entomologica 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 Zoologicae, 20: 161.
rosae, Musca, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, 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
Trigonocephalus 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 Trigonocephalus pulcher
and as defined by the female holotype (specimen no. ZMB 3868 in the
Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin, Germany);
(b) 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 Pérez’, 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 (Muséum
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 pulcher 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 pulcher from the synonymy of a/bocarinatus, so allowing the use of
pulcher for the western terrestrial species and albocarinatus for the Amazonian
arboreal taxon.
Comments opposing the application from Dr Ulrich Kuch (Forschungsinstitut
Senckenberg, Frankfurt 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 B. 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 of 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 Wister (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 (1) 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 | December 1998 the members of the Commission were invited to vote as set
out above. At the close of the voting period on | March 1999 the votes were as
follows:
Vote 1. Affirmative votes — 11: 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; Porthidium 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 nuevas especies de Bothrops en el Ecuador
(Serpientes venenosas), p. 2.
pulcher, Trigonocephalus, Peters, 1862, Monatsberichte der K6niglichen 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, 1884, 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 Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology the name vestigiatus De Vis, 1884, as published in
the binomen Hoplocephalus vestigiatus.
Decision of the Commission
On | 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:
vestigiatus, Hoplocephalus, De Vis, 1884, The Brisbane Courier, 39, No. 8324: 5.
tN
i)
w
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(3) September 1999
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 Meganthropus 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 of Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978), 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
Senytirek, 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, U.S.A.), Prof Paul
Renné (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 africanus 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 spécifique africanus Weinert (points (1) et (4)) mais je vote
contre sa mention en taxinomie comme synonyme subjectif d’afarensis (point (2)). Je
vote contre (2) car il me parait inutile d’officialiser en nomenclature le nom générique
Praeanthropus qui, en taxinomie ‘has not been used since its publication’ et qui, par
pure hypothése, ‘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.
africanus, Meganthropus, Weinert, 1950, Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Anthropologie, 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.
Contents — continued
OPINION 1931. Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved .
OPINION 1932. Holospira Martens, 1860 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Cylindrella
goldfussi Menke, 1847 designated as the type species ;
OPINION 1933. Androctonus caucasicus Nordmann, 1840 (eaeeaey Mesohuthus
caucasicus; Arachnida, Scorpiones): specific name conserved ; :
OPINION 1934. Paruroctonus Werner, 1934 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): conpented
OPINION 1935. Cicada clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (currently Asiraca clavicornis;
Insecta, Homoptera): specific name conserved. . .
OPINION 1936. Thamnotettix nigropictus Stal, 1870 (corrently Nephoteti nigro-
pictus; Insecta, Homoptera): specific name conserved . :
OPINION 1937. Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1860 (currently ilnenaearaa propinqua;
Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name conserved. . .
OPINION 1938. Musca rosae Fabricius, 1794 (currently Psilac or Chamacunda rosae;
Insecta, Diptera): specific name conserved . .
OPINION 1939. Trigonocephalus pulcher Peters, 1862 (cucently Eaten paler
Bothriechis pulcher or Bothriopsis pulchra; Reptilia, Serpentes): defined by the
holotype, and not a neotype; Bothrops eee Freire Lascano, 1991: specific
name placed on the Official List .
OPINION 1940. Hoplocephalus vestigiatus De Vin, "1884 (Reptilia, Serpentes}: eae
name placed on the Official List .
OPINION 1941. Australopithecus eae ieeaeeons 1978 (Mamaia Primates):
specific name conserved ei Seven rt tte 3. : of ed
204
206
208
209
CONTENTS
Notices . 7 :
The International Code of Zoolasiecal Nomenclature A
Call for nominations for new members of the Iniemmnonal Cananicere on
Zoological Nomenclature .
Applications
Leucocytozoon (Protista, Haemosporida): proposed adoption of Berestneff, 1904 as
the author and of Leukocytozoen danilewskyi Ziemann, 1898 as the type species.
G. Valkitinas. at
Gnomulus Thorell, 1890 (Arman ‘Opiliones): prapased demenation i G. cee
ranus Thorell, 1891 as the type species. P.J. Schwendinger & J. Martens.
Diastylis Say, 1818 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed designation of Cuma rathkii
Kroyer, 1841 as the type species. S. Gerken. cx
Tanaecia coelebs Corbet, 1941 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): meee Consentation of the
specific name. T. Yokochi.
Drosophila rufifrons Loew, 1873 aad D. Tebaniveoa Whesien 1949, (currently
Scaptodrosophila rufifrons and S. lebanonensis; Insecta, Diptera): proposed con-
servation of the specific names by the enone of a neotype for D. rufifrons.
G. Bachli . :
Vespertilio pipistrellus Sonreber: 1774 aint V. eet: Tene 1825 (cure
Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia, Chiroptera): ae a
designation of neotypes. G. Jones & E.M. Barratt . Pec 8
Comments
On the proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and Paludina
desmarestii Prévost, 1821 as the respective type species of Euchilus Sandberger,
1870 and Stalioa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). P. Bouchet .
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 HYDROBINA Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta,
Coleoptera) to HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). T. Wilke, G.M. Davis & G. Rosenberg . .
On the proposed conservation of Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Crustacea, Branchi:
opoda). W. Hollwedel .
On the proposed conservation of Paytatls Déjea 1835 (seer Colecuees
E. Colonnelli; M.A. Alonso Zarazaga & C.H.C. Lyal; H. Silfverberg . :
AUGOCHLORINI Beebe, 1925 (Insecta, ae aie te corrected matic and dat
(not Moure, 1943). M.S. Engel. apne
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Solnouae invicta ae 1972
(Insecta, Hymenoptera). W.R. Tschinkel; E.O. Wilson; S.W. Taber; S.B. Vinson.
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 neaDSy for H. tae
(Bleeker, 1846). ILM. Kerzhner; M.J.P. van Oijen a eee
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 1930. Osilinus Philippi, 1847 and Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda): conserved by the ae of Trochus turbinatus Born, 1778 as the
type species of Osilinus . 3 a gtk cans Lee ae
Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset
Page
165
166
167
168
171
174
177
179
182
187
187
191
191
198
198
The
Bulletin
Zoological
Nomenclature
one om
a #Or
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 2000 is £110
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
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
Prof A. Minelli (Jtaly)
Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)
Dr V. Mahnert
(Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
(Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa)
Prof A. Minelli (taly; 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)
Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Prof S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999
HISTORY MUSEUM
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 2 p Ui 1593
PURCHASED
|ZOOLOGY LIBRARY
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
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 publi-
cation but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted.
Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to
send his contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as
possible.
(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises
mainly applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals,
resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed
amendments to the Code are also published for discussion.
Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an
audience wider than some small group of specialists.
(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 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 Aczél, 1940 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed designation of Pipunculus
fuscipes Zetterstedt, 1844 as the type species. (Case 3132). M. De Meyer &
J. Skevington.
(2) Peristernia Mérch, 1852 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of
Turbinella 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 Thenus 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
(7)
(8
—
(13)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
Eolophus Bonaparte, 1854 (Aves, Psittaciformes): proposed conservation;
Psittacus haematodus moluccanus Gmelin, 1788 (currently Trichoglossus
h. moluccanus): proposed conservation of the subspecific name. (Case 3138).
R. Schodde & W.J. Bock.
Cuculus saturatus Hodgson, 1843, C. basalis 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.
Sceloporus occidentalis 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.
PERGIDAE Ashmead, 1898 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed precedence over
PTERYGOPHORIDAE Cameron, 1878. (Case 3141). S. Schmidt et al.
Mimeta bouruensis 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.
Euphryne obesus Baird, 1858 (currently Sauromalus obesus; Reptilia, Sauria):
proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Sauromalus ater
Duméril, 1856. (Case 3143). R.R. Montanucci et al.
Bruchus unicolor Olivier, 1795 (currently Bruchidius unicolor; Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed designation of a replacement neotype. (Case 3144).
M.F. Zampetti.
(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.
to
NR
~
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 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 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% (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@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 (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 $110 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
(£1195), office 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 229
Stockholm Natural History Museum £200
Systematics Association, U.K. £1000
Toyota Foundation, Japan £1769
Zoological Society of London £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 a2)
Centenary History 420
28234
GRANTS AND DONATIONS 13472
BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST 9899
CAPITAL GAIN ON INVESTMENTS 3125
54730
Expenditure
SALARIES, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES 57937
OFFICE EXPENSES 843
PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS 9006
PREPARATION OF 4TH EDITION OF CODE 1195
DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT 488
69469
Deficit for the year £14739
230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
Case 3075
Strongylus tetracanthus Mehlis, 1831 (currently Cyathostomum
tetracanthum) and C. catinatum Looss, 1900 (Nematoda): proposed
conservation of usage by the designation of a neotype for
C. tetracanthum
L.M. Gibbons
The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane,
North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts AL9 7TA, U.K.
(e-mail: LGibbons@rve.ac.uk)
J.R. Lichtenfels
Biosystematics 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@Ipsi.barc.usda.gov)
|
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the usage of the names
Cyathostomum tetracanthum (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. tetracanthum 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 tetracanthus
Mehlis, 1831 (the type species of Cyathostomum Molin, 1861), and the same specimen
is designated as the lectotype of Trichonema aegyptiacum Railliet, 1900; the latter
name had been established for C. tetracanthum as understood in modern times.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Nematoda; sTRONGYLOIDEA; Cyathostomum;
Cyathostomum tetracanthum; Cyathostomum 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. armatus Rudolphi, 1802 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 quadridentatum Dujardin, 1845 (p. 258), f
small strongyles of farm horses, as being the same species. 4
3. Wedl (1856, p. 53) renamed Sclerostoma tetracanthum as S. hexacanthum, —
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 hexacanthum is thus a
junior objective synonym of Strongylus tetracanthum.
4. Molin (1861, p. 453) established the genus Cyathostomum with Strongylus
tetracanthus as the type species by monotypy, because he considered this species to be
generically 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. tetracanthum.
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
tetracanthum for one (the commonest found by him in Egypt, where he was working)
of these and the new name C. catinatum 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. catinatum, and illustrated both this and the species he called C. tetracanthum.
6. Railliet (1923, p. 13) proposed that the generic name Trichonema 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 Trichonema 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 asinus) 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 Trichonema 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 longibursatum Y orke & Macfie, 1918 as the type species of Trichonema
Cobbold, 1874 and 7. aegyptiacum Railliet, 1923 as the type species of the subgenus
Trichonema (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 Trichonema aegyptiacum Railliet, 1923 in
Cylicostomum, but used this name at generic rank. Yorke & Maplestone (1926, p. 54)
synonymised Cyathostomum and Trichonema, but continued to use Trichonema 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; Barus,
1962) have cited Trichonema aegyptiacum Railliet, 1923 as the type species.
9. Hartwich (1986, pp. 63-71) surveyed the literature on Strongylus tetracanthus
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. fetracanthus to one of
them. He was unable to identify specimens corresponding to the description of
Cyathostomum tetracanthum 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 Cyathostomum tetracanthum to the species
described by Looss (1900) as C. catinatum, even though Looss had distinguished
between C. tetracanthum and his own C. catinatum (para. 5 above) and provided clear
descriptions of these two species. Hartwich proposed that C. tetracanthum 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. tetracanthum, 1 agree to ask the ICZN’. Our proposal was outlined at the
Workshop on the Systematics of cyathostomes of horses held at the 16th 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).
11. To achieve the aims mentioned in the previous paragraph, we propose that one
of Looss’s specimens of ‘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: CcyATHOSTOMUM
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: | male, Neotype of Strongylus tetracanthus 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 tetracanthus Mehlis, 1831 and to designate
as neotype the specimen referred to in para. 11 above (U.S. National Parasite
Collection, accession no. 087757.00);
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Cyathostomum Molin, 1861 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy
Strongylus tetracanthus Mehlis, 1831;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name
tetracanthus Mehlis, 1861, as published in the binomen Strongylus tetracanthus
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) Cylichnostomum Looss, 1901 (a junior objective synonym of Cyathostomum
Molin, 1861);
(b) Cylicostomum Railliet, 1901 (a junior objective synonym of Cyathostomum
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 Sclerostoma hexa-
canthum (a junior objective synonym of Strongylus tetracanthus Mehlis,
1831);
(b) aegyptiacum Railliet, 1923, as published in the binomen Trichonema
aegyptiacum (a junior objective synonym of Strongylus tetracanthus Mehlis,
1831).
References
Barus, V. 1962. The helminthofauna of horses in Czechoslovakia. Ceskoslovenska Parasit-
ologie, 9: 15-94.
Cobbold, T.S. 1874. Observations on rare parasites from the horse (Trichonema arcuatum).
Veterinarian, 47: 81-87.
Cram, E.B. 1924. A new nematode, Cylindropharynx ornata, 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 Cylicostomias, and notes on other genera of the Cylicostomes
of horses. Journal of Parasitology, 11: 229-230.
Diesing, M. 1851. Systema Helminthum, vol. 2. 588 pp. Vindobonae.
Dujardin, F. 1845. Histoire naturelle des Helminthes ou Vers intestinaux. 652 pp. Paris.
234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
Dvyoinos, G.M. & Kharchenko, V.A. 1994. [Strongylids of domestic und wild horses]. 234 pp.
Naukova Dumka, Kiev.
Gurlt, E.F. 1831. Lehrbuch der pathologischen Anatomie der Haus-Sdugethiere. Nebst
einem Anhange, welcher die Beschreibung der bei den Haus-Sdugthieren vorkommenden
Eingeweidwiirmer enthdlt. Band Il und Atlas. Berlin.
Hartwich, G. 1986. Zum Strongylus-Problem und zur Systematik der Cyathostominea
(Nematoda: Strongyloidea). Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen 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. deuce
of Helminthology, 2: 111-134.
Levine, N.D. 1968. Nematode parasites of domestic animals and of man. 477 pp. Pipes
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.), CJH 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 Parasitenkunde, Infectionskrankheiten 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 tetracanthus
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. /sis von
Oken (Leipzig), 24: 68-99.
Molin, R. 1961. Il sottordine degli Acrofalli. Memorie del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze,
Lettere ed Arti, 9: 427-633.
Popova, T.I. 1958. Strongiloidei zivotnych i oeloveka. Trichonematidy. Jn: Skrjabin, K.1. (Ed.),
Osnovy Nematodologii, vol. 7. Moscow.
Railliet, A. 1901. [Lettre au sujet de la prétendu occurrence de |’Ankylostome duodénal chez
le cheval]. Echo Vétérinaire (Liége), 30(1): 38-40.
Railliet, A. 1923. Le veritable Strongylus tetracanthus Mehlis et son role pathogene. Annales de
Parasitologie Humaine et Comparee, 1: 5-15.
Wedl, L.C. 1856. Uber die Mundwerkzeuge der Nematoden. Sitzungensberichte der Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe (Wien), 19: 33-64.
Yamaguti, S. 1961. The Nematodes of Vertebrates. Systema 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 Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
,
¢
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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
Staatliches Museum ftir Naturkunde, 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 OC6, Canada
(e-mail: oharaj@em.agr.ca)
Abstract. The purpose of this application 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 S. 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 urbana Harris, 1780; 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 pl. 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. 39-41, 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, pl. 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 cristata (currently in
the genus Siphona). Its specific name in combination with Siphona or Bucentes has
been consistently used in the literature for a species (or species complex) different
from Siphona geniculata. The examination by Andersen (1982, p. 165) of the Danish
female holotype of S. cristata, 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 Siphona on a fly with a description
which resembled that of De Geer’s Musca geniculata. In Opinion 1008 (BZN 30:
157-158, June 1974) the Commission designated M. geniculata 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 irritans Fabricius’; although Meigen later (1824, p. 161)
realized his own error and cited M. geniculata 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 geniculata (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 geniculata) 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 geniculata 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. geniculata (De Geer) for the most common species in Scandinavia (‘in Dania
ubique frequens, sub tota aestate et autumno’), and differentiated it from Siphona
cristata (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) geniculata 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 geniculata of authors, has been used in a biological
control project against the European Crane Fly Tipula paludosa Meigen, 1830; this
was accidentally introduced into Canada and the larvae (known in English as
ng PR Pes Lee -—
tl Mere? Pp wis
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 Musca 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 Siphona cristata
and adopted the unused name Siphona 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 Siphona 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 Siphona; 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 applied since the early 19th century
to the most common Siphona 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 Siphona 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, O. 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, 1776, 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 cristata 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).
Entomologica Scandinavica, 13: 149-172.
Andersen, S. 1996. The Siphonini (Diptera: Tachinidae) of Europe. Fauna Entomologica
Scandinavica, Supplement 33. 148 pp. Brill, Leiden & New York.
Bei-Bienko, G.Ya. & Steyskal, G.S. (Eds.). 1989. Keys to the insects of 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 identification 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 paldarktischen Dipteren, vol. 3. Budapest.
Boie, F. 1838. Zur Verwandlungs-Geschichte inlandischer Zweifliigler. Naturhistorisk
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. Mémoires pour servir a l'histoire 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. I. Cyclorrhapha. Notulae Entomo-
logicae, 60: 117-162.
Harris, M. 1780. An exposition of English insects . . . viii, 166 pp., 53 pls. London.
Herting, B. 1984. Catalogue of Palearctic Tachinidae (Diptera). Stuttgarter Beitrage zur
Naturkunde, Ser. A, no. 369. 228 pp.
Herting, B. & Dely-Draskoyits, A. 1993. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 118-624 in Sods, 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 Bureaux, Slough.
Herting, B. & Tschorsnig, H.-P. 1997. Raupenfliegen (Diptera, Tachinidae) aus der Schweiz.
Mitteilungen 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 europdischen zweifliigeli-
gen Insekten. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (Illiger), 2: 259-181.
Meigen, J.W. 1824. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen
Insekten, vol. 4. xii, 428 pp. Hamm.
Mesnil, L.-P. 1960. Note préliminaire sur les Siphona Meig. (Dipt. Tachinidae) d’Europe et du
bassin méditerranéen. Bulletin et Annales de la Société Royale d’Entomologie de Belgique,
96: 187-192.
Mihalyi, F. 1986. Tachinidae — Rhinophoridae. Fauna Hungariae, no. 161. 425 pp. Akadémiai
Kiado, Budapest.
O'Hara, J.E. 1983. Classification, phylogeny and zoogeography of the North American species
of Siphona Meigen (Diptera: Tachinidae). Quaestiones 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.
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 fauna italiana,
fasc. 78. 36 pp. Bologna.
Rennie, J. & Sutherland, C.H. 1920. On the life history of Bucentes (Siphona) geniculata
(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, 27: 234-237.
Tschorsnig, H.-P. 1985. Taxonomie forstlich wichtiger Parasiten: Untersuchungen zur Struktur
des mannlichen Postabdomens der Raupenfliegen (Diptera, Tachinidae). Stuttgarter
Beitrdge zur Naturkunde, Ser. A, no. 383. 137 pp.
Tschorsnig, H.-P. 1992. Tachinidae from the Iberian Peninsula and Mallorca. Stuttgarter
Beitrdge zur Naturkunde, 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 Beitrdge zur Naturkunde,
Ser. A, no. 556. 46 pp.
Tschorsnig, H.-P. & Herting, B. 1994. Die Raupenfliegen (Diptera: Tachinidae) Mitteleuropas:
Bestimmungstabellen und Angaben zur Verbreitung und Okologie der einzelnen Arten.
Stutigarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde, 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 descripta, vol. 8 (pp. 2935-3366).
Lund.
Ziegler, J. 1998. Die Morphologie der Puparien und der larvelen Cephalopharyngealskelette
der Raupenfliegen (Diptera, Tachinidae) und ihre phylogenetische Bewertung. Studia
Dipterologica, Supplement 3. 244 pp.
Ziegler, J. & Shima, H. 1996. Tachinid flies of the Ussuri area (Diptera: Tachinidae). Beitrdge
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 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.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 University 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 ludibunda
Girard, 1856 which in 1989 was rendered a senior subjective synonym. It is proposed
that the name /udibunda be suppressed, together with the unused putative senior
synonym A/burnus 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. udibunda which they designated as the lectotype.
The lectotype is, however, a specimen of Notropis stramineus (Cope, 1865), 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. stramineus a junior subjective synonym of C. /udibunda Girard, 1856, and they
adopted the latter little-used name as valid.
3. For a period in the late 19th century, Cyprinella ludibunda 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 ludibundus, listed a specimen (S.I. 132) from Cottonwood Creek in the
Museum of the Academy. Jordan & Evermann (1896, pp. 56, 273), using
N. ludibundus, 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, pl. 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. /udibunda designated by Mayden
& C.R. Gilbert (1989). C.R. Gilbert (1978, pp. 48, 56-57) investigated the
confusion about the type locality of C. /udibunda (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 (1865, 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 A/burnops blennius Girard,
1856 (i.e. Notropis blennius, the river shiner) and Moniana 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
Moniana 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, pl. 15, fig. 5), five paralectotypes ANSP
4132-4136 (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 (1960 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 (= Notropis ludibundus). 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 Notropis 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 &
Crossman (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 Pérez, 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 & Krumbholz (1984);
Oklahoma — Miller & Robison (1973); Ontario — Mandrak & Crossman (1992);
Pennsylvania — Cooper (1983); Saskatchewan — Atton & 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 N. ludibundus.
7. A few publications that appeared after 1989 have followed Mayden & C.R.
Gilbert’s recommended use of Notropis 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 —
Stauffer, Boltz & White (1995).
8. Putnam (1863, p. 9) established the new species Alburnus lineolatus, 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 lineolatus was regarded as a questionable synonym of
Notropis scylla (Cope, 1871) (= N. 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. /ineolatus, as Notropis deliciosus auct. (= N.
stramineus). If the London specimen is a syntype of A/burnus lineolatus Putnam, its
identification with Notropis stramineus is adequately confirmed by Ginther’s
et ee
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 243
redescription and Hubbs’s determination. A/burnus lineolatus 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 familiar 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) ludibunda Girard, 1856, as published in the binomen Cyprinella ludibunda;
(b) /ineolatus Putnam, 1863, as published in the binomen A/burnus 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 (1)(a) above;
(b) lineolatus Putnam, 1863, as published in the binomen A/lburnus lineolatus
and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.
References
Atton, F.M. & Merkowsky, J.J. 1983. Atlas 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(1): 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.
Bohlke, 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, 14: 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 distributional atlas 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 and 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 Museum 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. & Underhill, J.C. 1974. Northern fishes, with special reference to the Upper Mississippi
Valley. xix, 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 Pérez, H., Gaspar Dillanes, M.T. & Fuentes Mata, P. 1993. Listados faunisticos de
México. III. Los peces dulceacuicolas Mexicanos. Map, 99 pp. Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de México, D.F., México.
Etnier, D.A. & Starnes, W.C. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. 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 State Museum, Biological Sciences, 23(1): 1-104.
Gilbert, C.R. 1980. Notropis stramineus (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:
families Cyprinidae, Catostomidae, Ictaluridae, Centrarchidae and Elassomatidae. ii, 284
pp. Florida Museum of Natural History, Special Publication No. 1, 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 Sciences 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: \—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 pls. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Jenkins, R.E. & Burkhead, N.M. 1994. Freshwater fishes 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 United States National Museum, 8: 118-127.
Jordan, D.S. & Evermann, B.W. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive
catalogue of the species of fish-like vertebrates found in the waters of North America
north of the Isthmus of Panama. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 47(1):
1—1240.
Jordan, D.S. & Gilbert, C.H. 1883. Synopsis of the fishes of North America. Bulletin of the
United States National Museum, 16: 1—1018.
McAllister, 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. & Crossman, 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.), Systematics, historical ecology, and
North American freshwater fishes. xxi, 969 pp. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
California.
Mayden, R.L. & Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Notropis ludibundus (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 History, 17(3):
23-189.
Miller, 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 pls. 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.
Phillips, G.L., Schmid, W.D. & Underhill, 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. & Parnell, J.F. 1994. Freshwater fishes of the
Carolinas, 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
Sigler, W.F. & Sigler, J.W. 1996. Fishes of Utah, a natural 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, JM. & 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 texana Girard. Copeia, 1958(4): 307-318.
Tanyolac, J. 1973. Morphometric variation and life history of the cyprinid fish Notropis
stramineus (Cope). University 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 albizonatus, 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 SBD, 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
Paldontologisches Institut und Museum, Universitat Ziirich, 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 cornalianus (Bassani, 1886), the type species of
Mixosaurus Baur, 1887 (family MrxosAuRIDAE). 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 Jchthyosaurus 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 1. 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
(pls. 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 80cm 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 ‘M. cornalianus’ 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 Universitat Ziirich (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. 11) 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 Paladontologisches 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
Mixosaurus Baur, 1887 (gender: masculine), type species by original
designation Ichthyosaurus cornalianus Bassani, 1886;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cornalianus
Bassani, 1886, as published in the binomen Jchthyosaurus cornalianus and as
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type
species of Mixosaurus Baur, 1887).
References
Bassani, F. 1886. Sui fossili e sull’eta degli schisti bituminosi triasici di Besano in Lombardia.
Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 29: 15-72.
Baur, G. 1887a. Ueber den Ursprung der Extremitaten der Ichthyopterygier. Pp. 17—20 in
Bericht iiber die XX Versammlung des Oberrheinischen geologischen Vereins. 26 pp.
Stuttgart.
Baur, G. 1887b. On the morphology and origin of the Ichthyopterygia. American Naturalist,
21: 837-840.
Besmer, A. 1947. Beitraége zur Kenntnis des Ichthyosauriergebisses. Schweizerische Paldontolo-
gische Abhandlungen, 65: 1-21.
Brinkmann, W. 1998. Die Ichthyosaurier (Reptilia) aus der Grenzbitumenzone (Mitteltrias) des
Monte San Giorgio (Tessin, Schweiz) — neue Ergebnisse. Vierteljahrsschrift der Natur-
forschenden Gesellschaft 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. Paldontologie 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 cornalianus (BASSANI, 1886).
Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie (Monatshefte), 1997(12): 717-732.
Mazin, J.-M. 1983. L’implantation dentaire chez les Ichthyopterygia (Reptilia). Neues
Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie (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. x\vi,
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. Il Mixosauro degli strati triasici di Besano in Lombardia. Atti della Societa
Italiana 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, I1.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 purpose of this application 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; Mystacina 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
‘Vespertilio 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 tuberculatus, 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 (1843a, 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, Dieffenb. 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, pls. 53, 54) gave detailed
accounts, based on several specimens, of the Long-tailed and Short-tailed Bats under
the respective names of Scotophilus tuberculatus Forster and Mystacina tuberculata
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 himself), by a curiosity of bibliographic
history Mystacina tuberculata Gray, 1843 was in fact published as a valid name one
year before the appearance of Vespertilio tuberculatus J.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 Scotophilus. The name Chalinolobus 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 ...’.
Hutton’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
‘Mystacina’ [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 time, 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 modern
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. tuberculatus 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 Chalinolobus 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 lle
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) Mystacina 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);
(b) 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
Mystacina 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, Mystacina tuberculata; a review of
present knowledge. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 6: 357-370.
Daniel, M.J. 1990. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 114-137 in King, C.M. (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. Descriptiones Animalium quae in Itinere ad Maris Australis Terras per Annos
1772 1773 et 1774 suscepto. Collegit, observavit et delineavit Ioannes Reinoldus Forster.
Nunc demum editae 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.
xxvill, 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 History)
(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 in 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: 470-490.
Peters, W.C.H. 1866. Fernere Mittheilungen zur Kenntniss der Flederthiere, namentlich tiber
Arten des Leidener und Britischen Museums. Monatsherichte der Koniglich Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften 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: 422-428.
Tomes, R.F. 1857. On two species of bats inhabiting New Zealand. Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London, 25: 134-142, pls. 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 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
|
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 255
Case 3121
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
Robert S. Voss
Department 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, 1842 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; Pardifias & 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 Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
family ECHIMYIDAE (subfamily EUMYSOPINAE). Species of Proechimys, which has
traditionally included Trinomys 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, Proechimys and Trinomys 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 Mus 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, pls. 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) published
descriptions and illustrations of H. leucogaster 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. Jangsdorffii 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. nec 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 baffled, 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 of Holochilus.
9. The type species of Holochilus remained unfixed until 1902, when Miller & Rehn
(p. 89) so designated Mus (Holochilus) leucogaster 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 H. langsdorffii 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 H. 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. /angsdorffii 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 Proechimys 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. 1). We propose that H. 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 albispinus 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 of 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) albispinus 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
Adler, G.H. 1998. Impacts of resource abundance on populations of a tropical forest rodent.
Ecology, 79: 242-254.
Aguilera, M. & Corti, M. 1994. Craniometric differentiation and chromosomal speciation of
the genus Proechimys (Rodentia: Echimyidae). Zeitschrifte fiir Sdugetierkunde, 59:
366-377.
Aguilera, M. & Perez-Zapata, A. 1989. Cariologia de Holochilus venezuelae (Rodentia,
Cricetidae). Acta Cientifica Venezolana, 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 History, 5:
203-234.
Azara, F. de. 1801. Essais sur l'histoire naturelle des quadrupédes 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. Genetica, 50: 89-97.
Brandt, J.F. 1835. Mammalium rodentium exoticorum novorum vel minus rite cognitorum
Musei Academici Zoologici descriptiones et icones. Mémoires de L’ Académie Impériale
des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg, (6)3(2), Sciences Naturelles, 1: 358-442.
Brandt, J.F. 1855. Untersuchungen ueber die craniologischen Entwickelungsstufen und die
davon herzuleitenden Verwandtschaften und Classificationen der Nager der Jetztwelt, mit
besonderer Beziehung auf die Gattung Castor. Mémoires de L’ Académie Impériale des
Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg, (6)9(2), Sciences Naturelles, 7: 125-336.
Brants, A. 1827. Het geslacht der muizen door Linnaeus opgesteld, volgens de tegenswoordige
toestand der wetenschap in familien, geslachten en soorten verdeeld. xii, 190 pp., 1 pl.
Akademische Boekdrukkery, Berlin.
Burmeister, H. 1854. Systematische Uebersicht der Thiere Brasiliens, Theil 1 (Saugethiere,
Mammalia). Reimer, Berlin.
Cabrera, A. 1961. Catalogo de los mamiferos de América del Sur. Revista del Museo
Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia’. Ciencias Zooldgicas, 4(2):
309-732.
Desmarest, A.G. 1819. Rat. Pp. 40-95 in: Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, nouvelle
édition, vol. 29. Déterville, Paris.
Ellerman, 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 illustrata, 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 Astrocaryum paramaca by Proechimys in French
Guiana: comparison with Myoprocta exilis. Tropical Ecology, 32: 155-167.
260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
Freitas, T.R.O., Mattevi, M.S., Oliveira, L.F.B., Souza, M.J.,. Yonenaga-Yassuda, Y. &
Salzano, F.M. 1983. Chromosome relationships in three representatives of the genus
Holochilus (Rodentia, Cricetidae) from Brazil. Genetica, 461: 13-20.
Garagna, S., Pérez-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 and 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 épineux désignés par les auteurs sous
les noms d’Echimys, Loncheres, Heteromys et Nelomys. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires
des Séances de I’ Académie des Sciences, 6: 884-888.
Gyldenstolpe, N. 1932. A manual of neotropical sigmodont rodents. Kungliga Svenska
Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, (3)11(3): 1-164.
Hershkovitz, P. 1955. South American marsh rats, genus Holochilus, with a summary of
sigmodont rodents. Fieldiana (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 of Holochilus venezuelae in rice fields.
Mammalia, 53: 545-561.
Massoia, E. 1974. Ataques graves de Holochilus y otros roedores a cultivos de cana de aztcar.
Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria, IDIA, 321/24: \-12.
Massoia, E. 1981. El estado sistematico y zoogeografia de Mus brasiliensis 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 taxonomic 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 Oryzomys ‘capito’. 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 sixiéme ou rat a tarse noir’. Miscellaneous Publications of the
Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 161: \-41.
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 brasiliensis. 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 Séugthiere nach ihrer
Vertheilung iiber die Welttheile, riicksichtlich der Sidamericanischen Arten (Species). Pp.
192-237 in Eschwege, W.L. von (Ed.), Journal von Brasilien, oder vermischte Nachrichten
aus Brasilien, auf wissenschaftlichen 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.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 261
Pardinas, U.J.F. & Galliari, C.A. 1998. Sigmodontinos (Rodentia, Muridae) del Holoceno
inferior de Bolivia. Revista Espanola de Paleontologia, 13: 17-25.
Patton, J.L. 1987. Species groups of spiny rats, genus Proechimys (Rodentia: Echimyidae).
Fieldiana (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, Louisiana State University, 44: 1-30.
Pesséa, L.M., Oliveira, J.A. de & Reis, S.F. dos. 1992. A new species of spiny rat genus
Proechimys, subgenus Trinomys (Rodentia: Echimyidae). Zeitschrifte fiir Sdugetierkunde,
57: 39-46.
Peters, W. 1861. Uber einige merkwiirdige Nagethiere (Spalacomys indicus, Mus tomentosus
und Mus squamipes) des K6nigl. zoologischen Museums. Abhandlungen der Koniglichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1860: 139-156.
Rocha, P.L.B. da. 1995. Proechimys yonenagae, 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 venezuelae
(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, 111: 436-471.
Steppan, S.J. 1996. A new species of 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 Holochilus,
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 molitor 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 Habrocoma und Holochilus. Archiv
fiir Naturgeschichte, 8: 288.
Wagner, A. 1843. Die Sdugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur, mit Beschreibungen 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 gowazoubira 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 of Zoological Record but 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 gouwazoubira, 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 Cervus
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 l'histoire naturelle des quadrupédes de la province du Paraguay,
vol. 1. xxx, 366 pp. Pougens, Paris.
Azara, F. de. 1802. Apuntamientos para la historia natural de los quadrtipedos 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 matacan (Mazama spp.) (Artiodactyla:
Cervidae) en Venezuela. Revista 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 América del Sur. Revista del Museo Argentino
de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia’, Ciencias Zoolégicas, 4(2): 309-732.
Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.-E. 1991. A world list of mammalian species, 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. Journal of Evolutionary Biology,
8(4): 511-529.
Erxleben, J.C.P. 1777. Systema regni animalis per classes, ordines, genera, species, varietates
cum synonymia et historia animalium. Classis | (Mammalia). xlviii, 636, 64 pp. Weygan-
dianis, Lipsiae.
Fischer, G. 1814. Zoognosia. Tabulis synopticis illustrata, 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. A taxonomic 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. Zodlogische Monographieén van het
Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, No. 2. xxiv, 569 pp., 151 pls. Brill, Leiden.
Illiger, J.K.W. 1815. Ueberblick der Saugthiere nach ihrer Vertheilung tiber die Welttheile.
Abhandlungen der Kéniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 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 inervagao
do diafragma de veados Manzana [i.e. Mazama] americana, Manzana |Mazama] simplici-
cornis e Blastoceros [Blastocerus] bezoarticus. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and
Animal Science, 30(1) (Suplemento): 195-203.
Miller, G.S., Jr. & Kellogg, R. 1955. List of North American Recent mammals. Bulletin 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-Card6, 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. & Aceftolaza, P.G. 1995. Habitos frugivoros de la corzuela parda
(Mazama gouazoubira Fischer, 1814) (Mammalia: Cervidae). Dofiana, 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 pls. 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., Neitzel, 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 (Mazama gouazoubira)
habitat use at E] 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 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
Comment on the proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and
Paludina desmarestii Préyost, 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 Croydon, Surrey 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 Euchilus’ but instead have
accepted Paludina desmarestii Prévost, 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 deschiensiana 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
Fossilium 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 Prévost, 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 Prév. 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
_
—-—a sl hte
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 Prévost 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 Stoliva Fuchs, 1877, I 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. & Wenz, W. 1912. Verzeichnis und Revision der tertiaren Land-und Stisswasser-
gastropoden des Mainzer Beckens. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und
Palaeontologie, Beilagenband 34: 431-512.
Fischer, K. & Wenz, W. 1914. Die Landschneckenkalke des Mainzer Beckens und ihre Fauna.
Jahrbuch des nassauischen Vereins fiir Naturkunde, 67: 21-154.
268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
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 HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE
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 Baster, 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 HYDROBIDAE, 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, pl. 4) figured two syntypes of Cyclostoma 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 Muséum
National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) seems to be unfounded. The syntype figured by
Dollfus (1912, pl. 4, figs. 6 and 7) is clearly the species with the flattened whorls,
H. acuta; that in pl. 4, figs. 5 and 8 is partially encrusted. It is the latter specimen that
Boeters (1984, pl. 1, fig. 1) 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
ee
ee See ee oe ee he
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 269
specimens figured by Dollfus (pl. 4, figs. 11-18; two from Palavas and two from
Etang de Leucate) clearly belong to the species with the flattened whorls. This species
(H. acuta) is common along the Mediterranean coast, whereas the species with the
convex whorls (Ventrosia ventrosa) 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 acufa to the species with the flattened whorls (see Hoeksema,
1998, p. 110 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 [Hydrobia] 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 H. 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 H. acuta lectotype also
stabilized the current understanding of the genus Hydrobia. He characterized the
penis and bursa in Hydrobia as ‘pfriemférmig’ (awl shaped) and ‘hammerférmig’
(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 universality in the scientific names
of animals’. The proposed neotype selection of Giusti et al. will maintain the name
and concept of the genus Hydrobia 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 Hydrobia 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. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia
Naturale. Milano, 111: 1-433.
Backhuys, W. & Boeters, H.D. 1974. Zur Kenntnis marokkanischer Binnenmollusken, I.
Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 104(4-6): 107-114.
Boeters, H.D. 1976. Hydrobiidae Tunesiens. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 107(1—3): 89-105.
Boeters, H.D. 1998. Mollusca: Gastropoda: Superfamilie Rissooidea. In Schwoerbel, J. &
Zwick, P. (Eds.), Siisswasserfauna von Mitteleuropa, Band 5/1—2. ix, 76 pp. Fischer,
Stuttgart.
Forcart, L. 1965. Rezente Land- und Siisswassermollusken der siiditalienischen Landschaften
Apulien, Basilicata und Calabrien. Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in
Basel, 78(1): 58-184.
Gasull, L. 1965. Algunos moluscos terrestres y de agua dulce de Baleares. Boletin de la Sociedad
de Historia Natural de Baleares, 11(\-4): 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 zoetwatermollusken. Recente en
fossiele weekdieren uit zoet en brak water. 288 pp., 12 pls. Naturalis/K NNV/EIS, Leiden.
Kadolsky, D. 1995. Stratigraphie und Molluskenfaunen von ‘Landschneckenkalk’ und
‘Cerithienschichten’ im Mainzer Becken (Oberoligozén bis Untermiozin?), 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 Fléssner
Universitat Jena, Institut fiir Okologie, Arbeitsgruppe Limnologie, Jena, 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 rostrata (Koch, 1841), which he dealt with and illustrated in the same paper
(P.E. Miller, 1867, pp. 182-183). It is perfectly clear that had Miller 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 Phrixura is a junior synonym of Alona
Baird, 1843. The creation of the new genus Phrixura 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 (rostrata) that has been internationally recognised as valid for
more than 130 years since its publication.
2. The name Phrixura 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 Phrixura rectirostris 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
Phrixura. 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 Phrixura 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
Phrixura P.E. Miller, 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, I 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: 34-41, 200-201)
Maurice Kottelat
Route de la Baroche 12, Case postale 57, CH-2952 Cornol, Switzerland
272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 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 planiceps
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 Bagrus anisurus 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 ete.’. 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 N¢g et al. that the names of the nominal species now
in Hemibagrus should be defined, I here designate the specimen NNM 2956 in Paris
as the lectotype of Bagrus anisurus 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
clo 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 (1985a) 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
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
Varanus 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, Belmont,
California 94002, U.S.A.
H.M. Smith
Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A.
P.D. Strimple
Reptile Research and Breeding Facility, 5310 Sultana Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45238,
U.S.A.
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 library
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: 112),
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
Rehak, I. & Velensky, P. 1997. Biology of the varanids Varanus prasinus, V. rudicollis and
V. salyadorii in captivity. Gazella, 24: 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, Turramurra, 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
D{inornis]. dromaeoides because it is a nomen nudum in The Literary Gazette. The
only nomen nudum we did discuss was Sitta ferrugineoventris in The Athenaeum
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 275
because Hartert & Steinbacher (1932) accepted it as an available synonym of
S. 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 minutillus 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 Nomenclature, 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
Psephotus 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 [= Phoebetria] 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 peninsulae, 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(4) 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’.
11. 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
“Somateria y.-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. Auk, 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. Auk, 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: 381-405.
Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1992. Mammals of the Indomalayan region: a systematic review. 350
pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Frith, H.J. 1982. Pigeons and doves of Australia. 304 pp. Rigby, Adelaide.
Gould, Mr. [= J.]. 1859. [On two new species of birds, one belonging to the family Cuculidae,
the other to the Coturniceae]. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 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 naturkundliche Schriften, 3: 609-628.
Ingram, G.J. 1990. The works of Charles Walter De Vis, alias ‘Devis’, alias ‘Thickthorn’.
Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 28: \—34.
LeCroy, M. 1988. Semioptera 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 spelling
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 Psephotus dissimilis Collett, 1898.
Bolletino del Museo regionale di Scienze naturali Torino, 10: 89-95.
McAllan, 1.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 fiir Ornithologie, 112:
302-316.
Mees, G.F. 1986. A list of the birds recorded from Bangka Island, Indonesia. Zoologische
Verhandelingen, 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 civico 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.
Auk, 29: 191-198.
Sulloway, F.J. 1982. Darwin’s conversion: the Beagle voyage and its aftermath. Journal of the
History 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) December 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 taxonomic 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 City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia
Walter J. Bock
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, offers
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.nigrum’, 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: 119-129, 189; 55: 43-46,
119-120; 56: 72-73) i
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 taurus 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 ferus and Canis lupus are lumped together. Not
all the species have experienced ‘traditional’ separate naming for wild and domestic
forms. Bos mutus, Camelus ferus, Bubalus arnee and Equus africanus 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.
ferus 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 asinus, Camelus bactrianus,
Bubalus bubalis and Bos grunniens as the names of the species, and so did Zeuner
(1963) in his authoritative ‘History’, with the addition of E. caballus ferus.
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 Bos taurus 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 orientalis? Is the type population of Cavia
282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
aperea wild or feral? 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 foreach
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 thomsonii, is to be assigned to Eudorcas rufifrons; Palaeoloxodon
antiquus becomes Elephas namadicus; and vigorous discussions are in progress
concerning species limits in Galago, Callithrix, 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, Bubalus bubalis arnee or Equus caballus 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 and horses. An action plan for the conservation of wild
equids. vii, 36 pp. IUCN, 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: 437-438.
Zeuner, F.E. 1963. A history of domesticated animals. 560 pp. Hutchinson, London.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 283
AUTHORS IN VOLUME 56 (1999)
Page
Abramov.) Nileriansh Ue bie: Lak iel e 255
Alonso Zarazaga,M.A........ 194
BACON Gin alts i audi tay Ss peas 179
AE URGNM eho cA how es 240
PRATER MAC Ne mgteiyss os. 3). Seana, tp eeh o> fs 268
“Peraereii LSI (eae eee Moro 182
Eben i's) SSW Lele ed ects team? 98 |i ns | 233
SCI CRAM ok oc uesputte en @ daisy © ue 279
ROUOUMViote: 2 ce st eet 144
IBDELCESM EL Doe, tars RAD .s hs Se See 57
Bouchet PAs hn. Ad at 6, 53, 56, 187
BCATESIROMSIBSEIOhe hee Se eters, : fi 149
ESRATUKIA ATID Wiss syst shes Fees. vied 247
ETZEL DS NR ack tS pi oo a 113
BCoV Dee. ene teres ols 274
EVEN CAV hs nth he mene et 88 53
Te seuno) hd oe Rn gee 51
acperuriGy coe. choco « Fo. fe Alp!
(CHE FOTOS TL ES 191
See Nay f at kG ae 187
DA EELS v9 2\2) I llr res aie ra 63
BIGOSON a ee ste tO SRM, se 34
Bnpelw MESS 4. Vie les eh. oP 19, 134, 198
BIA NG cae ln) ered Eee ccd Cee g oak <9 149
BIRTED ere ces ves. a, ads abate a. ss Syl
RAMONES Ge. 8. ee ee 270
PISISSHET AUVs gcc osu ers) Wee ee 142
(CAPUTSS VS) ne eer 136, 262
RGeTSENV apt ro sc) st aye 's dansey = oy 42, 70
BSEMELVARAGW rs Si, Sues GG) a ed 42
MEEKCIO es te ees 174
Granuzzi-savells Roos. 2. 488) 50
Reb Orissa Mw. ee aS ot. 1b Cad 230
RATECNDOTO ET Eyes) baesh le Ws as sepgeee A 57
SC TE ee ear a eee 144
BSI NETS clon ee Muon eqs eras oe. 34
RGOSUTEL LAV: =e eet ee ee 54
PbO Mb) eM eas Aad eo 280
Biealemianiate, Wiakirycd tthe oOhner sess 48
“Ta OR Pa ee eee ee eee 235
FACCRGEIMAN DY cee. ey nae sd 62
EMU WeOCL Wace cat fee cs ete eke 191
RAGSED Re methane es A 66
EIOWeroley Uaeaetoy tice, TPE wi 108
Page
ACH MNI GAG tess ot -ce.dl oy ec ee 117
AONIGSN Ge akccr bet ay ove in Hes toe ee 182
mad olskyy Ds 205 oS) 24 Are) eee 62, 266
erZhinene ks Meet aa. aun har SP ees 200
ottelatMig =, 458 ce. c- aes eee ee
LSID) Bit iene ee RR er Bit babi 250
MichtentelseJak:. 92a 5 40% sees 230
LAER (Cols Lt Cart seem es Ca 194
MICAH IOAG WWE pcs e cays eye eee
MianpanelliiGangar: 2 \.G\icus Ge ahs 144
IMMETGHESWACG oh a oe 16
Marshallese: Sos. 84 Soa ee 54
Wartenssitters . fate. so cee See 171
Mikkelsen wR Sos BOs ee soe 54
IMinfOnMSvAtR fs). ike, cee aes See 148
IMIOHESHIAC Rete a. 3, 5. 8 one heuweete 72
WEOTOAN eM ou gars Ms es sive Nee ce epee 143
IVITIT VaR orate st fe) ss ws fe tes 149
INAD ESN ierie pte? cE) So av ws 113, 143
INGTON Rays oye ac) cere) ss 23 ay PRES
INGE ieee ite tia cs eco!) po ee 34
IN feel 2M 2) be, Se aH 1S 34
INOnMAN TID conc, ss ie cs ee 65
OjtarawpBrcckes 6 2 ely eBags 235
Ojjens Veep van. se) oe eee OO
Olson RUE. cw cs spas soe ere 148
RORCEAS ED, oe eee ee ae ee ae 27
BroschiwitZwl VOD ao ene $7
Ramirez-Bautista, A. ........ 149
etd Gee eos (a eee Sy ee 143
RUPKEN Ce Belie sic cin pCi seg eames 57
Robbins; GC: Bers) ee eee 136
Rosenberg? (Gi. «4s ee oe Oe 187
Rudman Wi Bis. eo ed ee see 52
Schedde RR... liza ec eee
Schroedi- Mi 2" 2 ee toes eerie 53
SchwendingerPJ. = ee) een 171
Shattuck SiO’ AS 222, Seta wie ica 27
SW Gdespelsh s Aah oo oe Ob 197
Smithiwhl: Mian coves See ee ke mlee273
Soliss WA esos, Sieh, om emece 31
Sopthipates VARS 0 Aan ee Near 113
Spencer tHiGer elie Gastar wins 53, 250
Sprackland REGS ff ee oes 273
284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
Strimple;.PJD.s Ses 2 ee oe 273
Szabolcs. Nur ac. eshte heteee i 72
DADE a Were cs occu esutte apeteh ger fet ae Sees 199
DMESer AS. clon rest sate 23, 121, 128
(BANTiEr, “WW ee es a 148
ThomnenT er. A CRs ae 108
sbschinikel WARS) sags kone pon 198
(Pseborsnig Oe ee) ste Ree Rs estes 235
ihabbs; Poke) eet ee ae ee behets 49
ValkionastGier ri Stet St viel 168
Vervoort We Si tc tipeninaeh err. 16
Winsons SAB BAB ty sic aie ade 199
Woss RS. ci Wo: ite it scionsie oe a 255
Wiaerele. Tee eae, Rees, ore 56
Wayaiie Mino fuerte a. Sere a 143
Wilke: Tie. 0%, BEE i ace eee 187
Willan RiG. sere ve so 8 51
Wilson.BiO) och t¥idunk eas ee 199
Winter: ALT. Gee oe Gre ucts. toe eer mn 57
\\ fo) (oil <i D2 RE SS 2 27
Yaldéne DyW.. 3). 2. Sheek, Sa ae 18
Vokochit: Fis\sjac! ary syadiea te ete 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
BRACHYPTERINAE 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 Miulsant, 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 Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1838 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914
Austrocochlea Fischer, 1885 (Gastropoda) Op. 1930
Belemnosepia Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1836 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914
Belemnoteuthis 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 Illiger, 1811 (Mammalia) Op. 1922
Dasypoda Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1926
Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) Op. 1926
Eustixia Hiibner, 1823 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1927
Eustixis Hiibner, [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
Hoffmanniellius 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
Leptoparius 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 Illiger, 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 Giinther, 1862 (Amphibia) Op. 1921
Pila Réding, 1798 (Gastropoda) Op. 1913
Polyrhachis Smith, 1857 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1919
Pomacea Perry, 1810 (Gastropoda) Op. 1913
Praeanthropus Senyiirek, 1955 (Mammalia) Op. 1941
Septoproductus Frech, 1911 (Brachiopoda) Op. 1928
Stenops Uliger, 1811 (Mammalia) Op. 1922
Stenorhynchus 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
Trochocochlea 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, Schiibler in Zieten, 1832 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914
aequinoctialis, Cimex, Scopoli, 1763 (Homoptera) Op. 1935
afarensis, Australopithecus, Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia) Op. 1941
africanus, 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
belemnitoeides, Orthoceras, Buckland, 1830 (Coleoidea) Op. 1914
bihamata, Formica, Drury, 1773 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1919
bollensis, 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
camillus, 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
dohrnii, Corisa, Fieber, 1848 (Heteroptera) Op. 1937
draparnaldi, Helix, Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) Op 1924
draparnaldi, 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, Turrilites, 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
nigromaculatus, Pediopsis, 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
perplexus, C nemidophorus, Baird & Girard, 1852 (Reptilia) Op. 1929
propinqua, Corisa, Fieber, 1860 (Heteroptera) Op. 1937
proscarabaeus, Meloe, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918
pulcher, Trigonocephalus, Peters, 1862 (Reptilia) Op. 1939
pupula, Eustixia, Hubner, 1823 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1927
pupula, Eustixis, Hubner, [1831] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1927
quadristriata, Cicada, Gmelin, 1790 (Homoptera) Op. 1935
reducta, Limenitis camilla, Staudinger, 1901 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1917
rosae, Musca, Fabricius, 1794 (Diptera) Op. 1938
sagitta, Vibrio, Miller, 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, Born, 1778 (Gastropoda) Op. 1930
typica, Suchonella, Spizharsky, 1939 (Ostracoda) Op. 1915
urticae, Dermestes, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera) Op. 1916
yestigiatus, Hoplocephalus, De Vis, 1884 (Reptilia) Op. 1940
yittata, Zonitis, Fabricius, 1801 (Coleoptera) Op. 1918
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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
acaroides, Sphaerius, Waltl, 1838 (Coleoptera) ..............4.. 117
ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Lepidoptera) ............4... 31
PGE MMOPUSHCUIUS-41 834 (Lepidoptera) tis, Sey ROR RN! A I a 31
acutum, Cyclostoma, Draparnaud, 1805 (Gastropoda) ..... . 56, 143, 187, 268
aegyptiacum, Trichonema, Railliet, 1923 (Nematoda) ............. 230
aethiops, Tenthredo, Gmelin, 1790 (Hymenoptera) .............. 121
agrorum, Tenthredo, Fallén, 1808 (Hymenoptera). .............. 121
albispinus, Echimys, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1838 (Mammalia) ........ 255
amerinae, Cynips, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) .............. 12]
mametastecia' Costa, 1882\(Eiymenoptera)'4 22) PO ek 121
aperea, |Cavia: Erxleben; 1777" (Mammialia)i'S 21s 1. eee as 72, 280
arbuscula, Eudendrium, Wright, 1859 (Hydrozoa) ............... 16
arbuscula, Tubularia, d’Orbigny, 1846 (Hydrozoa) ............... 16
mBrciocephalus: Cuvier le26) (Mammalia)! 2» .-.2- SUE SoRiy) 136
mugochiora Smith, «1853)\(Hymenoptera)™ 2 Panerai. Ss . 19, 198
AUGOCHLORIDAE Beebe; 1925 (liymenoptera) "fe. eo 19, 198
bernissartensis, Iguanodon, Boulenger in Beneden, 1881 (Reptilia) ....... 65
Blennocampa Hartig, 1837 (Hymenoptera). ~ .)).02 0. ee de a. 121
BLENNOCAMPINI Konow, 1890 (Hymenoptera). ............. 121
byronia, Phoca, de Blainville, 1820 (Mammalia) ............... 136
RoI GGstas e595 (rLyINeHODLELA min i ses San Sees ee es en 121
CALLROUNL Beusonu,1938 (Hymenoptera) .] ... .. 5: + 4 + ss 4 121
ealonmnys Glaylooo Mammalia). fe cease se so. e ce 136
Miormrurbainer, 1892 (Nammalia) a's vs. ots eat es Ns ee aoe us wee 136
caudatum, Strobilidium, Kahl, 1932 (Ciliophora) ............. 48, 142
Mi OODUSSECeTSasOOO) (\Viailimaliayi tet mis, 6 cs 2 ss (scisos. ee 250
cinxia, Tenthredo (Allantus), Klug, 1816 (Hymenoptera) ........... 121
racieps: Lanaecia. Corbet, 1941 (Lepidoptera)) . 5 <2 2. es es te 177
cornalianus, Ichthyosaurus, Bassani, 1886 (Reptilia). ............ .247
Grastaid, Stomoxys, Fabricius, 180S (Diptera)... . .. +. ..+-.+.. 235
ryprocampus tarts. 1837 (lymenoptera)) .. - ws - ) ee en 121
(svarnosiomiun Molin,.186) (Nematoda). ss). 2. .. ss ee ee 230
Gylichnostomum Tooss, 1901 (Nematoda) .............. +. . 230
epncostomum Railliet, J90U(Nematoday. SS. a 230
danilewskyi, Leukocytozoen, Ziemann, 1898 (Protista). ...........-. 168
decorata, Oxystoglossa, Smith, 1853 (Hymenoptera) ........... 19, 198
deschiensiana, Bithinia, Deshayes, 1862 (Gastropoda) .......... 187, 266
desmarestii, Paludina, Prévost, 1821 (Gastropoda) ............ 187, 266
MSHS Saye SUR ls: (Gumacea)) 2 J ath, ceases MR thon ieoe Aone 174
Disparalona Fryer, 1968 (Branchiopoda) ................ 191, 270
290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
Endelomyia Ashmead, 1898 (Hymenoptera) ...............-.. 121
Euchilus Sandberger, 1870 (Gastropoda) ......... Pa eel ete ae 187, 266
Eumetopias' Gil #1866)(Mammalia) (067.7 0k) imei is etyemes, eeetvicay MP. <i veis 136
exsul: ‘Crotalus; Gatman: 1884" (Reptilia), 4 «sca 1 jeer ie.) Sees ee 148
flavus, Bagrus, Bleeker, 1846 (Osteichthyes) ............. 34, 200, 271
GALAGIDAE Gray: 1825'(Mammialia)) 7. Ge ay-e-bees ts bt Of eel) Se 72
garnonsii, Acentropus, Curtis, 1834 (Lepidoptera) .............-.. 31
Gemmura Smith; 1968" (Hymenoptera) 42%). = tleh- sipaeeia ose 121
geniculata, Musca, De Geer; 1776;(Diptera)) f}-) 5 als! deen eee 235
glabrata, Tenthredo, Fallén, 1808 (Hymenoptera). .............. 121
Gnomulus Thorell; 1890i(Arachnida))\: ayeetls cease A lich sieetcs seen 171
gouazoubira, Cervus, Fischer, 1814 (Mammalia) .............. .262
gouazoupira, Cervus, Fischer, 1814(Mammalia) ............... 262
goulan, Hydrosaurus, Gray, 1838 (Reptilia) mente.) 2 cs i eet Glen Seman 66
gyrans, Strombidium, Stokes, 1887 (Ciliophora)... ........... 48, 142
iHalarctus Gill, 1866;(Mammialia)_.. = .¢ aulapemey, 3s Le), Pape) 136
Haminaea Veach, 1847 (Gastropoda)... sjspiieime ai is PEs: eh wc 49
Haminea Gray, 1847 (Gastropoda)ic- wi. yt tak) ye eell set bse eee en 49
HAMINEIDAE:Pilsbry, 1895\(Gastropoda) <9. =) a. - «5 = = 90s) eee 49
Haminoca Turton] 830"Gastropoda)) 2°. as te ena een 49
HAMINOEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (Gastropoda). .............6... 49
Hemibagrus Bleeker, 1862 (Osteichthyes) .............. 34, 200, 271
heriner, Hanaecia, Niepelty 1935i(Eepidoptera)) | 2. ene eee eee 177
hexacanthum, Sclerostoma, Wedl, 1856 (Nematoda) ............. 230
Holochiius Brandt-wieos)(Meanamalia)) 0 ces. oy cetey > anki ein 255
hydatis, Bulla, Winnaeus, 1758\(Gastropoda)- 5...) Soe ge ee 49
Hydrobia 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
Tsuanodon Mantel 1825 (Reptilia) yo aie emi ideo ie)ct 6-1 kaye, ee 65
inferentia, Poecilostoma, Norton, 1868 (Hymenoptera) ............ 121
infernalis. Goluber, Blainville; 1835) (Reptilia) s oy5 ©) ate! i) lee qh
invicta, Solenopsis, Buren, 1972 (Hymenoptera). ............. 27, 198
jubata, Phoca: Schreber, [1 776|) (Mammalia) sep ancien eh cua 136
kattwinkeli, Alcelaphus, Schwarz, 1932 (Mammalia) .............., 42
keithhornei, Odatria, Wells & Wellington, 1985 (Reptilia). .......... 272
lebanonensis, Drosophila, Wheeler, 1949 (Diptera) ............-.--. 179
Leucocytozoon Berestneff, 1904 (Protista) ... . .. :wediv2y. 0. Be) ee. 168
Leukocytozoen Ziemann, 1898 (Protista) .. 2... 2 ee ee 168
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 291
lineolatus, Alburnus, Putnam, 1863 (Osteichthyes). ............. .240
liturata, Tenthredo, Gmelin, 1790 (Hymenoptera). .............. 121
PORISIDAB Gray..L821o (Mammalia) igyunerestet iret orient orig Ais 72
ludibunda, Cyprinella, Girard, 1856 (Osteichthyes) .............. 240
Macrophya Dahlbom, 1835 (Hymenoptera) ................. 128
Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 (Mammalia). ................ 42
MICROSPORIDAE Crotch, 1873\(Coleoptera) Nt. eas < Mites ot. el il
MICROSPORIDAE Reichardt, 1976 (Coleoptera) .............. 117
WEXOSOUrUS BAUL, 188i (Reptilia) catia) Atak, ce & teers) . Gor eat 247
Monsoma MacGillivray, 1908 (Hymenoptera) ................ 121
montana, Tenthredo, Scopoli, 1763 (Hymenoptera) .............. 128
mucronatus, Nematus (Cryptocampus), Hartig, 1837 (Hymenoptera) ..... . 121
multifasciata, Tenthredo, Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 (Hymenoptera). .... . 23
Waysracna Gray, 1843) (Mammalia) nce: lel .Padale ome. ict stlamaie 250
Wvarstacops lLydekkeriSoln(Mammalia)nis* cides) ake © sesie hoc ele 250
nemurus, Bagrus, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (Osteichthyes)
ee so sty el chi tte > cine RAMAN el Pais TLS Stier fs 34, 200, 271
NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, [1845] (Lepidoptera)... ........... 31
Oranabcron. | 8i6.(Mammalia)i., ., . smseiona beens. waeus).| 2oees 1. ke 136
PLorspbischer sl Sly (varmnoalia) a. sae eats Is oy a se cal yes a ees 136
Oxystogiossa Smith, 1853.\(Hymenoptera)) 9.45.52... 5.: 44.5. : 19, 198
OXYSTOGLOSSINI Schrottky, 1909 (Hymenoptera) ............. 19
wanopies,.Varanus: Storr, 1980\(Reptilia)) 2s2ys Pe) eis ale i at, Seve 66
Phyllocolpa, Blennocampa, Viitasaari & Vikberg, 1985 (Hymenoptera)... . . 121
aywouus Dejan, 18351(Coleoptera) AIS |. Givainie vvetaes = aoubeolk Sean 191
eapiobius Schonhert-mass\(Coleopteta)etees-tisinicbe aoe varshls tue) ia 191
PRISE US IAlIDs Lolo (Mattiinalia)| skeeaer heehee ae eft Wan. Ghisaiee 4 Age 182
pipistrellus, Vespertilio, Schreber, 1774 (Mammalia) ............. 182
planiceps, Bagrus, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840 (Osteichthyes)
I ete eR Aer ee Tey a) san coy ings Se 34, 200, 271
ioecvostoma Wahibom, 1835\(Hymenoptera)). ......-...-++.45: 121
fescys.bubals, Broom: 1909\(Mammalia)) 7... «5. as ss se ee ee 42
minaVT Apis. Menge: Js so)(ymenopterd)) . 26. 26... 6 + oe 6 2G 134
raccmys Alien, 1899) (Mammalia): 0. 5 4. 2 2 se se ne pe 255
BISMLialicius say, Usd (Elymenoptera) ==... ..: + sss. soe 19, 198
psilaeenoca, schreber, [1 7/5|\(Mammalia) .. 1... . 2.2.50 2 524 = 136
pygmaeus, Verpertilio, Leach, 1825 (Mammalia) ............... 182
maka Cuma. Kroyer, 184i (Cumacea) ..: 80. se ee ew se ee ee 174
Re LLasysRecKO2S\(Mammalia)i(, Sy ......c. «4 9 © 60 fete ene 42
maven Grotaiis@ope, 1392 (Reptilia)! Gp nb 2 eg = + A) wee Bees 148
agions Drosophila wow, leis (iptera)) ey. . 2 « « + see es ee 179
rustica, Tenthredo, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) .............. 128
292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
sciureus, Holochilus, Wagner, 1842 (Mammalia) .... . id a, a 255
semiticus, Rhynotragus, Reck, 1925 (Mammalia). ............... 42
sieboldii, Bagrus, Bleeker, 1846 (Osteichthyes) ............ 34, 200, 271
SPHAERIJIDAE Erichsony 1845i(Goleoptera)!) 205). 225057. Se ee 117
Sphaerius Wall 838. (@oleoptera) 9). ces 6 cet ec oe) nee 117
SPHAERIUSIDAE Enichson, 1845 (Coleoptera)... . 1.2.2.2. .20 050; 117
Stalioa Brusina, 1870 (Gastropoda) sneaes +) a8) eee en. ee 187, 266
stramineus, Hybognathus, Cope, 1865 (Osteichthyes) ............. 240
Strongylogaster Dahlbom, 1835 (Hymenoptera) ................ 23
sumatranus, Gnomulus, Thorell, 1891 (Arachnida) .............. 171
Sylvanus, Papilio, Esper, [ili777]|(epidoptera)iae i) 7054. i) eer. eee 63
Taxonus Hartip. las 7a(Elymenoptera)yst10.t..aeeqeans tte Conn. inne 121
teriae, Varanus, Sprackland, 1991 (Reptilia) ............... e272
tetracanthus, Strongylus, Mehlis, 1861 (Nematoda) .............. 230
tetrataenia, Eutaenia sirtalis, Cope in Yarrow, 1875 (Reptilia) ......... 71
trinitatis, Echimys, Allen & Chapman, 1893 (Mammalia) ........... 255
Trinomysshomas; 1921) (Mammalia) 2>.20..2 2) See. 255
tuberculata, Mystacina, Gray, 1843 (Mammalia) ............... 250
tuberculatus, Vespertilio, Forster, 1844 (Mammalia) ............. 250
ursina,Phoca, Linnaeus, 1758)\(Mammialia) . ... 22 :20008y £ O28) ee 136
velutina, Mystacina, Hutton, 1872 (Mammalia). ............... 250
Ventrosia Radoman, 1977 (Gastropoda) ............ 56, 143, 187, 268
ventrosus, Turbo, Montagu, 1803 (Gastropoda) ......... 56, 143, 187, 268
Venigrum»Somateria, Gray, 1855 (AVES) eee a.) i SS Ce ee 274
wagneri, Solenopsis saevissima, Santschi, 1916 (Hymenoptera) ...... . 27, 198
wrighti, Bulinus reticulatus, Mandahl-Barth, 1965 (Gastropoda) ........ 113
wrightii, Bulinus, Sowerby, 1853 (Gastropoda) ................ 113
wrightii, Eudendrium, Hartlaub, 1905 (Hydrozoa) ............... 16
Bulletin 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 arabic
figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined
and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of
publication.
Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary,
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce
the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the
typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format,
preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible.
The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the
formulation of an application.
294
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999
PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF VOLUME 56 (1999)
Part No. Pages in Part Date 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
rae
—
_ ain ans -
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 . :
Indexes, etc.
Authors in volume 56 (1999)
Names placed on Official Lists and Tiadeneed in rulings of the Conmmriasien published
in volume 56 (1999) .
Key Names in Applications and Goniments published: in volume 56 (1999).
Information and instructions for authors .
Publication dates and pagination of volume 56 (1999).
Instructions to binder . ee
Table of Contents of volume 56 (1999)
CONTENTS
Notices .
The Tneeonbional C oe af Zooloical Pomencbianes
Financial Report for 1998
Applications
Strongylus tetracanthus Mehlis, 1831 (currently Cyathostomum tetracanthum) and
C. catinatum Looss, 1900 (Nematoda): proposed conservation of usage by the
designation of a neotype for C. tetracanthum. L.M. Gibbons & J.R. Lichtenfels .
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. B. Herting, H.-P. Tschorsnig & J.E. O'Hara .
Hybognathus stramineus Cope, 1865 (currently Notropis stramineus; Oncchines
Cypriniformes): preposed conservation of the specific name. R.M. Bailey .
Ichthyosaurus cornalianus Bassani, 1886 (currently Mixosaurus cornalianus; Reptilia,
Ichthyosauria): proposed designation of a neotype. W. Brinkmann . :
Mystacina Gray, 1843, Chalinolobus Peters, 1866, M. tuberculata Gray, 1843 and
Vespertilio tuberculatus J.R. Forster, 1844 (currently C. tuberculatus) (Mammalia,
Chiroptera): gone conservation of usage of the names. H.G. Spencer & D.E.
LB Seo uee
Holochilus Brandi. 1835, Fe nore aU: im Siler 1899 and Renters 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 .
Cervus gouazoubira Fischer, 1814 (currently Mazama gouazoubira; Mammalia,
Artiodactyla): proposed conservation as the correct original spelling. A.L.
Gardner en ee eee LO. c
Comments
On the proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and Paludina
desmarestii Prévost, 1821 as the respective type species of Euchilus Sandberger,
1870 and Stalioa Brusina, 1870 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). D. Kadolsky
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 HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca). R.A. Bank .
On the proposed conservation of pepe Fryer, 1968 (Crustacea) Hae
opoda). D. Flossner . 3 ,
On the proposed designation = a | single neobype for peniae a nemurus
(Valenciennes, 1840) (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) and H. sieboldii (Bleeker, 1846),
and of the lectotype of H. planiceps (Valenciennes, 1840) as a a for H. flavus
(Bleeker, 1846). M. Kottelat .
On the proposed conservation of the Sreunen name of Baresi. teriae Spenckland
1991 (Reptilia, Sone H.G. coe R.G. sr Le H.M. Smith &
P.D. Strimple
On the proposed Sea ae ‘all pauE usages a eedene and apes names ‘oe birds
(Aves) by John Gould and others conventionally accepted as published in the
Proceedings of the Zoological “ae : ie London. M.D. Bruce & 1.A.W. McAllan;
R. Schodde & W.J. Bock F WLS ;
Page
225,
227
228
230
235
240
247
250
255
262
266
268
270
271
272
274
Continued on Inside Back Cover
Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset
;
UT
:
Sait
.
1
*
‘
ae.
‘. é
i ~
Reh i
be
ie . :
_
be i
i
Iulia
; Hi
Ht
ely
i)
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11