; tape! > oe wal ti PM bitdastee iat rt] Pees sowates Sa i ae res pier ‘ ed Shes aan ae bite ios ees 3 zaV oy sue rf +094 ie ae ven mies 2 * as Sb a VN ae THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 2 Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1951-1952 (All rights reserved) wO1005 GOX FO VIFésijUa Bl | aU EAIOREMOK™ a a degzu (qhushta oat 6 Fowewiwos INAOTLAMS BAUTATONSINOY, IADION, x ER LOF te tothe \ bs ees Mo IMA Mi sinister peed snd wh BO Sees. SrA alae 2 ‘ * . eee INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (to 19th April 1952) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (from 27th November 1952) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (1st January 1944) (died 19th April 1952) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944 (died 18th July 1951) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (President from 27th November 1952) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S8.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947) (died 29th September 1952) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (lst January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) iv INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming. Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Honorary Secretary & Managing Director: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.H. Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. 8. Pankhurst, C.B.E. Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner. E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust Secretariat of the Commission: 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, NW, Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, 8.W.7. FOREWORD The present is the first volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature dealing with individual nomenclatorial problems to be published since the end of the war. The first Part was published in April 1951 and the last Part (Part 11), exclusive of the present index Part, was published in September of that year. The total period covered by the publication of these eleven Parts was therefore five months. Volume 1 (apart from the index Part— Part 12) was completed in March 1947, and the long interval before the commencement of publication of the present volume is due to the fact that it was decided in 1948 to give priority to the three volumes of the Bulletin (Volumes 3 to 5) devoted to the documents considered in Paris in that year by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and _ the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, and of the Official Records of the Proceedings of those bodies. Thus it is that, although the second of the series of volumes of the Bulletin, the present was, in fact, the fifth of those volumes to be started. 2. The present volume, which contains 474 pages (T.P.-xxvi, 1-448), com- prises 135 papers, of which 62 are original applications submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and 73 are comments by specialists upon those applications and, in one case (Gryphaea Lamarck) upon an applicationa already published in another volume (Volume 3). 3. Of the 62 original applications, two deal with names belonging to two different Classes of the Animal Kingdom. For practical purposes, therefore. the present volume contains 64 applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Similarly, four of the applications published in the present volume are joint applications by two or more joint authors. When account is taken of this fact, the number of applicants is found to amount to 84. 4. Of the 64 applications published in the present volume, two ask for Declarations from the International Commission on the meaning of individual provisions in the Régles, three relate to the status of names published in certain books, while fifty-nine are concerned with individual scientific names. 5. The 59 applications relating to individual names published in the present volume, when grouped by references to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom Bull, zool, Nomenel., Vol. 2 (December 1952) vi to which the genera or species concerned belong, are distributed as follows :— Distribution of applications, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom Name of Class Number of applications Rhizopoda Nematoda Crustacea Insecta Merostomata Gastropoda Pelecypoda Cephalopoda Brachiopoda Reptilia (indeterminate) — — ASD eK OD bd | a | >) oO 6. When the 84 applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in which they are resident, applications are seen to have been received from residents of the following countries (arranged in alphabetical order): - Distribution of applicants, by country of residence Country Number of applicants United States of America 33 Argentina 1 Great Britain 40 Denmark 1 Germany 1 Netherlands 6 Norway 1 = Switzerland 1 84 7. The exceptionally large number of applications relating to the names of genera and species of the Class Cephalopoda is due to the receipt of a large number of such applications in relation to ammonites submitted by Dr. W. J. Arkell, the author of the relevant portion of the forthcoming international Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (General Editor : Professor Raymond C. Moore, University of Kansas) for the purpose of assuring a sound legal founda- tion for the names to be used in that important standard work. 8. Forty-nine (77 per cent.) of the applications published in this volume are applications by specialists for the use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers for the purpose of promoting stability and uniformity in nomenclature and of preventing the confusion which, in the opinion of the applicants, would result from the strict application of the ordinary provisions in the Régles in these cases, Vii 9. The applications published in this volume contain proposals for the addition of 145 names to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and of 277 names to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. In addition, 86 generic names are proposed for final burial by being placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and 21 trivial names for similar final disposal on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 10. Of the 73 comments published in this volume, 5 relate to more than one application. When account is taken of this fact, the total number of comments on applications published is found to be 89. Of these, 4 are comments on proposed Declarations and one is a comment on a proposal relating to the status of a book. The remaining 84 comments relate to applications concerning individual names. All the applications to which these comments relate have been published in the present volume, except one (relating to the name Gryphaea Lamarck) which was submitted to the Commission during its Session held in Paris in 1948 and which was therefore published in volume 3 of the present work. 11. When the applications on which comments have been received, are grouped by reference to the genera and species concerned, it is found that the distribution of those comments is as follows :— Distribution of comments on applications relating to particular names, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom Name of Class Number of comments Rhizopoda 1 Nematoda i Crustacea 23 Insecta | 31 Merostomata 2 Gastropoda Pelecypoda 9 Cephalopoda 9 Brachiopoda 3 Reptilia 2 (indeterminate) 1 84 12. The exceptionally large number of comments received in regard to applications relating to the names of Crustacea and Insecta are concerned mainly with two applications which aroused particular interest. The first of these was the application (Application Z.N.(S.)231) regarding the names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crangen Fabricius, 1798 ; the second was the group of applications relating to generic names in the Order Diptera published by Meigen in 1800, 13. On many of the applications published in this volume comments were received too late for inclusion. These comments will be found in volume 6. 14. Of the 73 comments published in the present volume, three were sub- mitted by two or more joint authors. Taking this into account, the total number of specialists who submitted comments is found to be*85. 15. When the 85 authors of comments published in this volume are grouped by reference to their country of residence, it is found that the distribution is as follows :— Distribution of authors of comments by country of residence of the authors concerned Country Number of authors of comments United States of America 29 Argentina 2 Australia 1 Great Britain 39 British West Indies 1 Canada 1 Denmark 2 France 4 Germany 4 Netherlands 2 85 16. Under the procedural decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at Paris in 1948, the “‘ Summaries ” of Declarations or, as the case may be, of Opinions rendered by the International Commission on the applications published in the present volume will be published in the first available Part of the then current volume of the Bulletin, directly those Declarations or Opinions are adopted by the International Commission. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 11th October 1952. TABLE OF CONTENTS Principles adopted in the selection of applications for immediate pub- lication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ; Decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Note by Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ee Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Death of Commissioner Paul Rode Retirement of Commissioner Karl Jordan Election of Commissioners Report on the question whether, in order to avoid confusion in nomen- clature, it is desirable that the plenary powers should be used by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to vary the type species of the genus Plewrocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda, Order Mesogastropoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretar, y to the International Commission on Zoological N omenclature . : ame a an ; at Proposed awa of Aphidius Nees, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) under the plenary powers. By W. D. Hincks, Department of Zoology, University Museum, Manchester, England .. On the proposed validation of Aphidius Nees, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) under the plenary powers. By E. O. Essig, Dwision of Entomology and vi pakier gid i lke of aegry Berkeley, California On the question of the availability of the generic name Leptopsylla Rothschild and Jordan, 1911 (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera). By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S., British Museum saa pr isteral Zoological Museum, Tring On the relative merits of the generic names Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863, and Leptopsylla Jordan and Rothschild, 1911, as the generic name of the House-Mouse Flea (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological N. omenclature iss Page bo ps | 18 21 22 Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the trivial name ajar Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the bmominal combination Papilio ajax) commonly but incorrectly applied to the species named Papilio marcellus by Cramer in 1777 (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- doptera). By the late A. Steven Corbet, British cer (Natural History), London . : ; AA ee = On the proposal that the trivial name oH hs Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ajax) should be suppressed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its plenary powers. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary _ to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate Mytilus edulis Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Filibranchiata) (Proposed validation of an entry in the Official List made in Opinion 94). By Harold K. Vokes, Department of Geology, The Johns ncaa oe Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. ‘ Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda, Order Tectibran- chiata). By Henning Lemche, Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark : co Proposed suppression under the plenary powers of the generic name Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758. By H. Munro Fox, F.R.8., Bedford College, London University % is bee A oe Proposal that the generic name Rantus Dejean, 1833 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) should be emended to Rhantus under Article 19 and that the type species of this genus should be determined under the procedure laid down for dealing with genera based upon mis- identified type species. By J. Balfour-Browne, M.A., Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London . : Proposed validation under the plenary powers of the names Acantholyda Costa, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) and Acanthocnema Becker, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A. Foca of aoe British Museum ip Ge Histor ¥), London Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic names Rhina Latreille, [1802-1803], and Magdalis Germar, 1817, for use respec- tively in the accustomed sense (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By J. Chester Bradley, gecwera of ea Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. - Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of thirteen genera in the order Collembola (Class Insecta). By Hermann Gisin, Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Genéve Page 26 31 35 37 40 46 47 56 Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Cardinia (Class Lamellibranchiata) as from Agassiz, [1841], for use in its accustomed sense. By L. R. Cox, Sc.D., F.RB.S., Fo ie a Geology, British Museum (Natural H istory), London Proposed determination under the plenary powers of the species to which the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Coluber sirtalis) (Class Reptilia) is to be applied. By Karl P. Schmidt, Chief Curator of Zoology, Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., and Roger Conant, Curator, Philadelphia ane te Gardens, » Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A... x - Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp and the generic name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, for the Snapping Shrimps (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis, acai eee, van pede Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands On the confusion which would arise from the acceptance of the generic names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Alpheus Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By Poul Heegaard, University of Copenhagen, Denmark a 7 ~e - os 4% On Dr. Poul Heegaard’s proposal that the names Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) should be validated under the pee aie By the late Robert Gurney, Ozford ; a £5 a On Dr. L. B. Holthuis’ proposals relating to the generic names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798. By Albert H. Banner, University of Hawari, Honolulu 14, Territory of Hawaii On Dr. L. B. Holthuis’ proposals relating to the generic names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798. By Fenner A. Chace, Jr., Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, DC USA; On the proposed validation of the names Crangon and Alpheus as from Fabricius, 1798, by the suppression of the names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Alpheus Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Supplementary note by L. B. Holthuis, Se van Natuur- like Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands geile Proposed use of the plenary powers to render the generic name Scyllarides Gill, 1898 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) the oldest available name for the species currently referred thereto.. By L. B. Holthuis, Riyksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands xi Page 59 67 69 73 74 75 79 81 xii Proposed use of the plenary powers to render the generic name Lysto- squilla Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda) the oldest available name for the species currently referred thereto. By L. B. Holthuis, Riyksmuseum van Rarer guste Leiden, The Netherlands es Be : ap On Dr. L. B. Holthuis’ proposal that the plenary powers should be used to preserve the use of the generic name Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852 (Class. Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda) in its accustomed sense. By the late Robert Gurney, Oxford $* Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda). By L. B. Holthuis, ge van Co an ae pees: The Netherlands . : Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress certain names published for fossil animals by Linnaeus in 1768 and by other authors in later editions of the works of Linnaeus. By the late R. Winckworth, London a Se sts ar 7” rs arr ; Proposed use of the plenary powers to prevent the confusion which would result, under a strict application of the Régles, from the sinking of the name Conchidium as a synonym of Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Brachiopoda) and the transfer of the latter. name to the genus now known as Conchidiwm. By F. Elizabeth S. Alexander, M.A., Ph.D., orcs Museum, mamieada a University, Cambridge ; On the proposal that the plenary powers should be used to conserve the names Conchidium and Pentamerus for the fossil Brachiopod genera _. to which those names are customarily applied. By J. K. St. Joseph, M.A., Ph.D., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge On Dr. F. Elizabeth Alexander’s proposal for the use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers to validate current usage of the generic name Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Brachiopoda). By Thomas W. Amsden, Department of Geology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. ‘On Dr. F. Elizabeth Alexander’s proposal for the use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers to validate current usage of the generic name Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Brachiopoda). By G. Arthur Cooper, Curator, Inverte- brate Paleontology and Paleobotany, Smithsonian Institution, U. 8. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. nn Page 83 85 86 88 89 96 96 i Proposed validation under the plenary powers of the generic names Jngia Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) and Carcinus Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By the late Alida M. Buitendijk and L. B. Holthuis, sareesete van Natuur- like Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands rf, On the generic name Ligia as used by Weber, 1795, and by Fabricius in 1798 (Class Crustacea, Orders Decapoda and Tsopoda 7 By Poul Heegaard, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Proposed use of the plenary powers to vary the type species of Capsus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) in order to validate existing nomenclatorial practice. By W. E. China, Sc.D., Deputy Keeper, roi hte of Si ae British Museum (Watura History), London . : Request for views of specialists on the question whether the substitution, as required by the Reégles, of the name quadratus Fabricius, 1787, for the name albicans Bosc, [1801-1802], as the trivial name of the Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) would give rise to confusion or instability. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the terms Tettigonia and Acrida (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) as subgeneric names as from Linnaeus, 1758 (Application submitted in response to the invitation given in Opinion 124). By Ashley B. Gurney, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Agricultural Research Adminis- tration, United States se of se dbinsihe Resinm: BC, Jf. ae On Dr. Ashley B. Gurney’s proposal that the name Tettigonia should be validated as from Linnaeus, 1758, as of subgeneric status in the Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta), by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its plenary powers. .By W. E. China, Esq., M.A., Sc.D., Deputy Keeper, er em a aS British Museum (Natural History), London .. On the proposed validation of the generic name Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, in the Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta). By R. G. Fennah, Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, St. Augustine, Trinidad .. On Dr. Ashley B. Gurney’s proposal that the names Tettigonia and Acrida should be validated, as from Linnaeus, 1758, by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its plenary powers. By B. P. Uvarov, O.M.G., D.Sc., Amnti-Locust Research Centre and British Museum (Natural H istory), London Page 99 102 103 105 106 109 110 111 xiv First Report on matters left unsettled in Opinion 124, in relation to the status of the terms used by Linnaeus, 1758, to denote subdivisions of genera established in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae : The subdivisions of the genus Giryllus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of certain non-marine genera in the Phylum Mollusca. By A. E. Ellis, Epsom College, Surrey, England ‘ Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Trial Names in Zoology of the names of certain non-marine species in the Phylum Mollusca. By A. E. Ellis, Epsom College, Surrey, England as é Report on the procedure proposed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to put an end to the confusion in the nomenclature of the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) resulting from the controversy regarding the generic names published by Meigen in 1800 in his Nowvelle Classification des Mouches a4 Deux Ailes ; first instalment of applications. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ; % be ee Bs Application for the use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By C. W. Sabrosky, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau a Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C. On Dr. €. W. Sabrosky’s proposal relating to the generic names Titania Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological N omenclature On the proposed suppression under the plenary powers of the name Titania Meigen, 1800, in favour of the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By H. Oldroyd, Department a Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London A On the proposed suppression of T'tania Meigen, 1800, and validation of Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) under the plenary powers. By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc., genre of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge zs Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By William F. Rapp, Jr., CRrietains of Biology, Doane College, Crete, Nebraska, U.S.A. . + ie . a Zs # Page 112 119 125 131 134 138 139 139 140 On the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, be suppressed under the plenary powers in favour of Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By H. Oldroyd, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London : is Objection to the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, should be suppressed and Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) validated in its place. By Alan Stone, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C. .. . 4 le. A “i Proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, should be retained and the name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) should be treated as a synonym. By D. Elno Hardy, University of Hawaii, Agricultural Experiment Station, Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii ae tz: re i oe as Support for the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, should be retained and that the name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) should be treated as a synonym. By Martin L. Aczél, Institute of Entomology, National U niversity of Tucuman, Tucumdn, Argentina sd f a me » Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Pipunculus Latreille [1802-1803], and to suppress the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc., University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc., University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge ie za A a =e ae a3 Me Objection to the proposal that the plenary powers should be used to suppress the name Tendipes Meigen, 1800, for the purpose of validating the name Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Alan Stone, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C... Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By D. Elmo Hardy, University of Hawaii, Agricultural Experiment Station, Honolulu, Territory of Hawati + = i os Proposed addition of the name Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; support for application submitted by Professor D. Elmo Hardy. By Martin L. Aczél, Institute of Entomology, National University of Tucumin, Tucumén, Argentine ! Wy us #; Mt XV Page 14] 142 144 146 148 150 153 155 xvi Proposed addition of the name Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; comment on the application submitted by Professor D. Elmo Hardy. By Alan Stone, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C. a: ais Proposed addition of the generic name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official Inst of Generic Names in Zoology and of Micropeza Meigen, 1803, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. By Martin L. Aczél, Institute of Entomology, National University of Tucumén, Tucumaén, Argentina Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Micropeza Meigen, 1803, and to suppress the name T'ylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc., Unwersity of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge... ie sai Proposed addition of the name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; comment on the application submitted by Professor Martin L. Aczél. By Alan Stone, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C. oe qe Introductory note on applications submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to the names of certain Jurassic Ammonites. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge =i 2 a .y “g Appendix: On the question whether the suppression of the name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), under the plenary powers would cause any inconvenience to Coleopterists (Memorandum, dated 5th November, 1949). By C. E. Tottenham, Zoologica Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge bis oY Proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of the type species of the genus Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge Unwersity, Cambridge 7 rs Proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of the type species of the genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, and of the type specimen of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc, F.RS., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge + SNe Page 155 156 158 160 163 164 165 167 170 Dr. W. J. Arkell’s application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for rulings (a) on the question of the type species of Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, and (b) on the question of the type specimen of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . . , Sr = e He o Proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of the type species of Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenza Salfeld, 1913 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University re On the proposals relating to the determination of the type species of the nominal genera Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) submitted to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by W. J. Arkell. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., “CBE. , Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological N omenclature Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of the genus Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge a Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of Waagen’s (1869) ammonite genera Kosmoceras, Harpoceras and Perisphinctes (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. eae ik Museum, ries: University, Cambridge Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the name Planites de Haan, 1825, and to determine the use of the name Nautilus poly- gyratus Reinecke, 1818 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Se., F.R.A. See Museum, Cambridge University, Cambr vdge ve Application for the suppression under the plenary powers of five early generic names now fallen into disuetude published for ammonites (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sce., F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge Proposal to suppress the generic name Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789, under the plenary powers and to place the generic name Arvetites Waagen, 1869 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.RS., Sedgwick Musewm, Cambridge University, Cambridge xvii Page 173 178 181 188 191 194 198 200 XViil On the generic names Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878, and Scamnoceras Lange, 1924 ; proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.RS., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge On the relative status of the names Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, and Seguenziceras Levi, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Se te Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge On the relevance to the availability of a name under the Regles of the question whether the author, when publishing that name, intended it to be available for use as a scientific name. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretar y to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . nS se oP ie Proposed validation of the name res Buckman, 1924, by the suppression, under the plenary powers, of the name T'oxosphinctes Buckman, 1923 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge us e ig | Grete a Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of the genus Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am- monoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. Marites Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge Proposed use of the plenary powers to ieee the type species of Liparoceras Hyatt, 1867, a genus based upon a misidentified type species (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge ms na ae ni - a Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of Normannites Munier-Chalmas, 1892, a genus based upon a mis- identified type species (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. ee Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge : Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in pa of the names of twenty-one genera of Jurassic Ammonites (Class Cepha- lopoda, Order Ammonoidea) and matters incidental thereto. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.RB.S., Renner Museum, Car University, Cambridge ue Proposed use of the plenary powers for the purpose of malig the trivial name virgula Deshayes, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea virgula) (Class Pelecypoda) (Jurassic) the oldest available name for the species in question. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Se., F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge Umiversity, Cambridge ; 5 bo xe La se a Pes Page 204 208 211 214 217 220 222 224 234 Proposed use of the plenary powers for the purpose of making the trivial name asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal com- bination Pecten asper) (Class Pelecypoda) the oldest available name for the species in question. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge Universtty, Cambr idge On Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the validation, under the plenary powers, of the trivial names asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten asper) and virgula Deshayes, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea virgula) (Class Pelecypoda). By L. R. Cox, 8ce.D., F.R.S., Department a Geology, British Museum (Natural History), "London ; On an application, the grant of which would require that the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, should be suppressed, under the plenary powers, thus validating the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819 (Class Pelecypoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. A seats to the International Commission on veal Nomenclature Entamoeba coli versus Endamoeba os (Class Rhizopoda). By Harold Kirby, Department of apes U: aie uf benoit oe California, U.S.A. : On the problems damesoed in Opwnion 99 (relating to the names Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, and Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By Elisworth C. Dougherty, Ph.D., M.D., Depart- ment of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A. REPORT on the investigation of the nomenclatorial problems associated with the generic names Hndamoeba Leidy, 1879, and Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 (Class Rhizopoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C. BE. , Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological N omenclature : E as et On the question of the correct name for the type species of the genus Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida), with recommendations for the placing of certain names on the Official Lists. By Ellsworth C. Dougherty, Ph.D., M.D., a of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California On the question of the desirability of retaining the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Stephanurus dentatus) as the trivial name of the kidney worm of swine (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida); an appeal to para- sitologists for views on the question raised by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Comnussion on Zoological N omenclature X1x Page 236 239 243 bo Cr oo bo J ~I 282 XX Proposed use of the plenary powers to vary the type species of the genus Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), in order to validate existing nomenclatorial practice. By W. E. China, Se.D., Deputy Keeper, Department of eat y, British Museum - (NV atural History), London Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the specific trivial name acuminata loff & Tiflov, 1946 (as published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata) as applied to the species numbered ‘‘ 68” by those authors (Class Insecta, Order Siphon- aptera). By G. H. E. Hopkins, O.B.E., M.A., British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tri ing, Herts .. Application for the addition of the name Spirula Lamarck, 1799 (Class Cephalopoda) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and matters incidental thereto. By the late R. Winckworth, London Application for a ruling that the Prodromo of 8. A. Renier and the Prospetto della Classe der Vermi (dated 1804) prepared for inclusion in the Prodromo were not published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Regles. By L. R. Cox, Sc.D., F.R.S., Department a Geology, British Museum (Natural History), London - Proposed addition of Cercopis Fabricius, 1775, and sanguinolenta Scopoli, 1763 (as published in the binominal combination Cicada sanguin- ‘olenta) to the Official Lists of Generic Names and Specific Trivial Names wn ee cere re ae Wilhelm W oe ae Fuhlsbiittel : Request for a ruling that the distribution of a microfilm does not_ constitute publication for the purposes of Article 25 of the Reégles. Application submitted jointly by the Jount Commiatiee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America and by the N omenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology ? Support for the request submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a ruling that the distribution of a scientific paper on microfilm does not constitute publication for the purposes of Article 25 of the Regles. Communication received from the Committee on Nomenclature of the American Museum of Natural History, New York : Ou the request submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a ruling that the distribution of a scientific paper on microfilm does not constitute “ publication”’ for the purposes of Article 25 of the Regles. By Charles H. Blake, Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. Perna ree 39 me bi - Page 296 298 299 301 306 308 309 On the request to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for a ruling that the distribution of a scientific paper on microfilm does not constitute ‘‘ publication’ for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles. By EH. H. Behre, Lowisiana State U ee Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A. Support for the proposal that the distribution of scientific papers on microfilms should be ruled as not constituting publication for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles. By the eet Record Committee of the Zoological Society of London 5 On Dr. L. R. Cox’s proposal that 8. A. Renier’s Prodromo and the Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi should be declared not to have been published within the meaning of Article 25 of the ps By -the late R. Winckworth, London ; ' a Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate type species for the genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By R. L. Usinger, United States Public Health Service, and R. I. Sailer, United States isa of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. On the application for the use of the plenary powers to designate type species for the genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) submitted by Professor Robert L. Usinger and Dr. R. I. Sailer. By Francis Hemming, CMG. "CBR: nak to the Inter national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . nde On the proposed use of the plenary powers to designate type species for Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera): support for the proposals submitted by Professor Robert L. Usinger and Dr. R. I. Sailer. By W. E. China, Se.D., Deputy Keeper, Department of rapa rg Museum (Natur ‘al History), London ae Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the entry on the Official Tist of Generic Names in Zoology of the name Limulus Miiller, 1785 (Class Merostomata): proposed correction of an error in Opinion 104. By Leif Stormer, Paleontologisk Institut, Oslo, Norway On the question whether it is desirable that the generic name Limulus Miller, 1785, should be validated under the plenary powers and confirmed in its position on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By H. Munro Fox, F.R.S., London Es ations cae College, London ; RY XX1 Page 310 311 313 315 318 319 XXll Support for the proposal that the name Limulus Miiller, 1785 (Class Merostomata) should be validated under the plenary powers and confirmed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By Carl O. Dunbar, Yale University, Sonat Museum a Natural History, New Haven, Conn., U.S.A. -* On the question of the type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda): comment on proposal submitted by M. Gilbert Ranson, together with a supplementary request for the use of the plenary powers to suppress the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Anomia gryphus). By L. R. Cox, Se.D., F:R.8., Sic ge a ae y. British Museum (Natural History), London Objection to the proposal that Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819 (Class Pelecypoda) should be designated as the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819, by the suppression of the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge oe Oe yi: Objection to the proposed acceptance of Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, as the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819 (Class Pelecypoda) : comment on proposal submitted by M. Gilbert Ranson. By Myra Keen, Curator of Paleontology, and Seimon W. Muller, Professor of Os: oes peer segibihe: Cali- forna, USA... Objection to the proposed acceptance of Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, .as the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda) : comment on proposal submitted by M. Gilbert Ranson. By D. T. Donovan, B.Sc., Ph.D., Bae: a Bristol, Department of Geology, Bristol . : Support for Dr. L. R. Cox’s proposal for the use of the plenary powers to validate the name Cardinia (Class Lamellibranchiata) as from Agassiz [1841]. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.RBS., ig Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge Aa Support for Dr. Henning Lemche’s proposals relating to the generic name Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda). By Joshua L. Baily, Jr., San Diego, California; U.S.A. ee 1 ee an Support for the proposal submitted by Dr. W. J. Arkell in regard to the generic names Ammonites, Arnioceras and Liparoceras and the trivial name angulatus Schlotheim, 1820 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites angulatus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By D. T. Donovan, B.Sc., Ph.D., Bristol University, Department of Geology, Bristol ; , Page 323 324 331 332 333 334 334 335 a Support for the proposal submitted by Dr. W. J. Arkell that the generic name Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) should be suppressed under the er, gp By C. W. Wright, London a bi : Support for the proposal submitted by Dr. W. J. Arkell for the sup- pression under the plenary powers of five early names for genera of ammonites (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By C. W. Wright, London .. a ay Ka i>. 5 he = On the question whether the generic name Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) is an available name : comment on the view expressed by Dr. W. J. Arkell. By H. Engel, Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands } np Support for the proposals relating to the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda) set forth in the report sub- mitted by the Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By Joshua L. Baily, Jr., San Diego, California, U.S.A. ie is a rs bop 42 Support for Dr. W. E. China’s proposal relating to the type species of the genus Capsus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By 8. v. Kéler, Chief of the ei aly ae ir eo Museum der Universitat, Berlin Support for the proposal submitted by Professor Harold E. Vokes relating to the entry of the name Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda) on the Official List of Generic Names in ie my Joshua L. Baily, Jr., San Diego, California, U.S.A. _ Support for the retention of the generic names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crago Lamarck, 1801 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) : objection to proposal submitted by Dr. L. B. Holthuis. By Waldo L. Schmitt, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. ; Support for the proposal submitted by Dr. L. B. Holthuis regarding the names Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By Marie V. Lebour, D.Sc., The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, England . Objection to Dr. L. B. Holthuis’ proposals relating to the names Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea. Order Decapoda). By Frank A. McNeill, Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales te : , a ; XXiil Page 336 338 338 339 340 340 34] XXIV Support for the proposal submitted by Dr. L. B. Holthuis regarding the names Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By A. B. Needler, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Atlantic Pict Sale Station, St. Andrews, N.B., Canada Fe : A propos de la proposition du Dr. L. B. Holthuis au sujet des noms génériques Crangon Weber, 1795, Crangon Fabricius, 1798, et Alpheus Fabricius, 1798. Par H. Nouvel, Faculté de Sciences de Toulouse, France ne a Support for the proposals submitted by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in regard to the generic names Crangon, Ligia, Scyllarides, Lysiosquilla and Odontodactylus (Class Crustacea). By Heinrich Balss, Hauptkon- servator der Zoologischen Staatssammlung, Miinchen, a D., Germany Support for the proposals submitted by Dr. L. B. Holthuis in regard to the generic names Crangon, Ingia, Scyllarides, Lysiosquilla and Odontodactylus (Class Crustacea). By EK. Sollaud, Université de Lyon, Faculté des Sciences, Lyon as Support for the proposals relating to the generic name Ligia Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) and associated problems submitted by the late Miss M. Buitendijk and Dr. L. B. Holthuis. By A. Vandel, Laboratoire de cee Université de Toulouse, France e ss 3 <% Support for Professor Munro Fox’s proposal that the generic name Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758, should be suppressed under the plenary powers. By Joshua L. Baily, Jr., San Diego, California, U.S.A. . Request that the name Dorylas, an emendation by Kertesz (1910) of the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. By D. Elmo Hardy, University of Hawaii, Department of Zoology and Entomology, Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii .. : Objection to proposal submitted by Professor Martin L. Aczél in favour of the addition of the name Tylos to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. mes Vandel, Laboratovre de sae iat Université de Toulouse, France Comments on the applications submitted to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature regarding the generic names Titania, Dorilas, Tendipes, Philia and Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order mS ae W. hice he Deutsches ee Institut, Berlin : an Page 342 344 344 345 345 346 348 XXV Page On the proposal that the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ajax) should be suppressed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its plenary powers. By Cyril F. Dos Passos, LL.B., Research Associate, Department of Insects and Spiders, American Museum of Natural History, New York .. in a ie = Pe > O49 Support for the proposal submitted by the late Dr. A. Steven Corbet for the suppression of the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ajax) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Erich Martin one ee Museum der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin .. 350 Proposed use of the plenary powers to determine the species to which the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the bi- nominal combination Coluber sirtalis) (Class Reptilia) is to be applied : support for application submitted by Dr. Karl P. Schmidt and Mr. Roger Conant. By Laurence M. Klauber, San Dvego, California, U.S.A. ee S. 2 if ay Fr Jaye eOe Support for the proposal submitted by Dr. Karl P. Schmidt and Mr. Roger Conant that the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Coluber sirtalis) (Class Reptilia) should be preserved for use in its existing sense under the plenary powers. By Murray L. Johnson, M.D., Tacoma, Washington, [Ue Saas ae nA o *, tet 5 oy ie. Obe Annual Report of the Committee of Management of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the year 1949 Me ives abo International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : Accounts for the year 1949... ag ace ae % OO Balance Sheet : 31st December 1949 .. he a = jeu 358 Income and Expenditure Accounts for the year ended 31st December 1949. = B é. a st 2 200 Annual Report of the Committee of Management of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the year 1950 : tery aoe XXVI International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : Accounts for the year 1950 Balanee Sheet : 31st December 1950 .. Income and Expenditure Accounts for the year ended 3lst December 1950 Corrigenda Index to authors of applications and of comments on applications Subject Index . Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which Volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was published Instructions to Binders Page 367 368 370 312 373 377 447 448 7 VOLUME 2. Part | 20th April, 1951 ig pp. 1-32. a q THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON . - _-@OOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE : ‘ he . rh “ he ria ~% ew \ pre we Edited by ¢* "FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G.,-C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The Official Organ of a ; CONTENTS : ie. ed Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the present Part : is es ~ Notice of possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases Ps - a if te a J (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed ‘by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1951 Price Ten shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference tc date of election or of most recent re- election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (1st January 1944) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (1st January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (Ist January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cahrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Peirre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (6th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Honorary Secretary and Managing Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., CBE: Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust Secretariat of the Commission : 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1 Offices of the Trust : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 x : % re a BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 2, Part 1 (pp. 1-32) 20th April 1951 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Norice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publica- tion in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (vol. 2, Part 1) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and, in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secre- tariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 1. Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers, is involved in appli- cations published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the following names :— (1) Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda) (Z.N.(S.)83). (2) Aphidius Nees, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Z.N.(S.) 149). (3) Trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ajax) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Z.N.(S.)192). 2 (4) Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Filibranchiata (proposed validation of an error in Opinion 94) (Z.N.(S.)193). 2. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin ; other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned. 3. In accordance with the arrangement agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:56) corresponding Notices have been sent to the journals “ Nature” and ‘ Science.” FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 10th April, 1951. PRINCIPLES ADOPTED IN THE SELECTION OF APPLICATIONS FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION IN THE “ BULLETIN OF ZOO- LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ” Decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1. In the latter part of the year 1950, the International Commission had under consideration the question of the principles to be adopted in the selection of applications for immediate publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature. This matter clearly required careful consideration, for at the date in question (31st October, 1950), it was estimated that there were about 270 applications awaiting consideration ; it was evident that the publication of this large body of applications would inevitably require a considerable period of time (both because of the fact that the Commission possessed no assured annual income and also because it possessed no whole-time salaried staff and had, therefore, to rely for the discharge of the whole of the work of the Secre- tariat upon its honorary spare-time officers). Accordingly, in any given case the date on which a decision would be taken by the Commission would necessarily turn to a considerable extent upon the order selected for the publication of the applications awaiting consideration by the International Commission. 2. As the result of the consideration of this question, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decided that the selection of applica- tions for immediate publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was to be made in accordance with the following principles and requested the Secretary to the Commission to proceed accordingly :— (1) Subject to the qualification noted in paragraph 3 below, applications are, so far as practicable, to be published in the order in which they were originally received, except where this would interfere. with the prompt publication of applications falling in the classes specified in (2) below. (2) Preference is to be given to applications which for any reason are of exceptional urgency, such as applications falling in the following Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 classes :— (a) applications relating to matters which the International Commission has indicated or may in the future, indicate are to be treated as of exceptional urgency, e.g., applications submitted, in accordance with the invitation issued by the ‘International Commission at its Paris Session, with the object of putting an end to the confusion in the nomenclature of the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) arising out of the long-standing controversy regarding the names published by Meigen in 1800 in his Nowvelle Classification des Mouches a deux Ailes (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 558); (6) applications on which decisions are needed as a preliminary to the publication of important books, e.g., the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, now in preparation under the General Editorship of Professor Raymond C. Moore (University of Kansas) ; (c) applications relating to well-known names suddenly threatened by the excavation of long-forgotten and totally overlooked names. 3. Applications received by the International Commission range from (1) applications which (a) contain all the data (including bibliographical references) necessary to enable the Commission to reach a decision on the question submitted and (6) which are presented in the desired manner, that is, typed, double-spaced, on one side of the page only and with wide margins, and furnished in duplicate, to (2) applications which comply with some only, or with none, of the foregoing requirements. Applications of the latter kind involve a considerable amount of correspondence .with specialists and/or additional clerical and typing work in the Secretariat, before they can be submitted to the Commission ; the Commission has accordingly decided that, while every effort should be made to complete applications of this kind as rapidly as possible, the publication of later applications submitted with all the necessary particulars is not to be held up, while this is being done. 4. Applications are given Registered Numbers in the Z.N.(8.) Series immediately upon receipt. Normally therefore, the relative date of receipt of any two applications may be determined in this way. It should be noted however, that this is not always the case; for (1) preliminary enquiries and tentative applications are sometimes registered initially in the Z.N. (G.) Series, until it is clear that an application is going to be made ; (2) Some applications, when received, deal with more than one subject and it is sometimes found convenient at a later stage, to break up such applications, assigning a separate Registered Number to each of the component items, with the result that the applications so separated bear a higher number than would correspond to their original date of receipt. FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, lst March, 1951. 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PERSONNEL OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Death of Commissioner Paul Rode The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature much regret to announce the death of their colleague Commissioner Paul Rode (France). Retirement of Commissioner Karl Jordan The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature much regret to announce that in May, 1950, they were informed by Commissioner (and Honorary Life President) Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) that on account of age and increasing deafness he had decided to resign his active Membership of the Commission. The Commission felt bound to respect Commissioner Jordan’s wishes in this matter. They are, however, happy to think that there will be no break on this account in their close association with Dr. Jordan, an association which began thirty-seven years ago when at Monaco in 1913 he was elected a Member of the Commission and which became still closer when in 1929 he was elected to be their President in succession to the late Professor F. Monticelli (Italy), for, although Dr. Jordan is no longer an active Member of the Commission, he retains the Office of Honorary Life President, to which he was elected by acclamation by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Paris in July, 1948. fed) | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (continued) Election of Commissioners In accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July, 1948, the following elections to the Membership of the Commission have been made by the Executive Committee of the Commission, with effect from the dates severally specified below :— Teiso Esaki (Japan), Professor of Entomology, Kyushu University, Kyushu (re-election) (17th April, 1950). Pierre Bonnet (France), Professor of Zoology, University of Toulouse (9th June, 1950). Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom), Keeper, Department of Ento- mology, British Museum (Natural History), London (9th June, 1950). Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland), Professor of Entomology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw (re-election) (15th June, 1950). Robert Mertens (Germany), Professor, Natur-Museum Senckenberg der Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. Main (5th July, 1950). Erich Martin Hering (Germany), Professor, Zoologisches Museum der Uni- versitat, Berlin (5th July, 1950). FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the Commission : 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpvon, N.W.1, England. 1st December, 1950. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REPORT ON THEQUESTION WHETHER, IN ORDER TO AVOID CONFUSION IN NOMENCLATURE, IT IS DESIR- ABLE THAT THE PLENARY POWERS SHOULD BE USED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE TO VARY THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “PLEUROCERA” RAFINESQUE, 1818 (CLASS GASTROPODA, ORDER MESOGASTROPODA) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)83) I. Statement of the case 1. The purpose of the present Report is to examine the question whether or not it is desirable that, in order to avoid confusion in nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its plenary ‘ powers for the purpose of designating, as the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, the species (Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831), which for nearly eighty years has been accepted as the type species or whether the general interest would be better served by accepting as the type species the species (Plewrocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820), which is undoubtedly the type species under the Régles, but which is regarded by interested specialists as being referable to a genus distinct from Plewrocera Rafinesque as currently understood. 2. The facts of this case are as follows :— (1) The generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Amer. mon. Mag. 3: 355) was published with a generic diagnosis; no type species was designated or indicated ; the names of six new nominal species were cited under the generic name Pleurocera, but no description, definition or other ‘‘ indication ” was given for any of these nominal species. The names so used by Rafinesque are therefore nomina nuda and accordingly have no bearing on the choice of the species to be selected as the type species of the genus. (2) In 1819 (J. Phys. Bruaelles 87: 423) Rafinesque gave a revised definition of the genus Plewrocera Rafinesque, 1818, but he did not, when doing so, cite the name of any nominal species as being referable to this genus. (3) It was not until 1820 that the name of a nominal species possessing rights under the Law of Priority was cited as belonging to the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818. This was when Rafinesque himself published the specific name Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820 (Ann. Nat. 1820 : 11) and characterised the nominal species so named. (4) In 1831, Rafinesque (Enum. Account:2) published the name Pleurocera acuta as the name of a new nominal species, which he duly characterised. 2 —————————L——— Se Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 (5) In 1864, Tryon brought into use the name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, which until then had been neglected. As so reintroduced by Tryon, the generic name Plewrocera Rafinesque applied to the group of species which includes the species Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831. (6) In 1912, Hannibal (Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 10:169) selected Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, as the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818. (7) In 1917, Pilsbry (Nautilus 30: 110) accepted the action taken by Hannibal in 1912. (8) In 1917, following upon the foregoing paper by Pilsbry, Bryant Walker (Occasional Papers Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 38:10) argued that the conclusion reached by Hannibal (1912) and Pilsbry (1917) was not in conformity with the ruling given in the Commission’s Opinion 46 and that, under a correct reading of that ruling, the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, was under the Reégles not Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820 (as alleged by Hannibal and Pilsbry) but Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831. 3. In spite of having in 1917 accepted Hannibal’s view that Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque was the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, Dr. H. A. Pilsbry (Academy of Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) must have felt doubts about the wisdom of disturbing the uninterrupted practice of the preceding 50 years, for in 1925 he decided to refer this question to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature with a view to obtaining a decision by which to guide himself in a book which he was then engaged in writing. Accordingly, on 15th January, 1925, Dr. Pilsbry addressed a letter, with enclosures, on this subject to the Secretary to the Commission. In his covering letter, Dr. Pilsbry, after explaining that at that stage he was concerned only to obtain from Dr. Stiles a preliminary opinion on the question of the type species of the genus Plewrocera on the basis of the documents enclosed with his letter, proceeded as follows :— If you think P. acuta can stand as type, I will accept that in a work I have in hand without further discussion, as this will not modify the usage current for fifty years. But, if you think that P. verrucosa will have to stand as type, I will expand the statement and submit to the Commission, in order to have authority for making a change in the names of two well-known genera. 4. The following is the text of the two documents enclosed with Dr. Pilsbry’s letter of 15th January, 1925: (1) Enclosure No. 1 to Dr. Pilsbry’s letter of 15th January, 1925. Type of Pleurocera Raf. The terms of Rafinesque’s original diagnosis of Pleuwrocera, 1818, were sufficiently general to cover species of several subsequent genera, such as Augitrema Hald. or Trypanostoma Lea. He mentioned several species but none of them was ever described or recognised otherwise. In 1819, he redefined the genus in terms fully applicable to the later genus Trypanostoma. In 1820 Rafinesque described Pleurocera verrucosa, a species which might fall within the very general terms of his first definition of Plewrocera, but it would certainly be excluded from 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Pleurocera as redefined in 1819. This species was designated type of Plewrocera by Hannibal in 1912. It was the first species described under that generic name. In 1831 Rafinesque described three species of Plewrocera, of which one, P. acuta of Lake Erie, is a well-known mollusk, clearly identical with the later Trypanostoma subulare Lea, described from Niagara River. P. acuta agrees fully with Rafinesque’s generic definitions. P. acuta was designated type of Plewrocera by Walker (Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. No. 38, p. 9, 1917). He took the ground that Rafinesque erred in referring the species verrucosa to Pleurocera, and that Hannibal therefore had made an unlawful type designation. Question : Can Walker’s designation of P. acuta as type of Pleurocera be upheld? Remarks ; Opinions vary as to whether P. verrucosa falls within the terms of Rafinesque’s 1818 definition. I am inclined to grant that it does, though if I had mollusk and definition before me unprejudiced by names, I probably would not think to connect them. Walker thinks them incompatible. It is a matter of individual opinion. That P. verrucosa would certainly not fall within the terms of Rafinesque’s second (1819) definition of Plewrocera all admit. Pleurocera has been universally used for species congeneric with P. acuta Raf. since 1872, when Tryon adopted it in a monograph of the family (Smithsonian Misc. Coll. No. 253). (2) Enclosure No. 2 to Dr. Pilsbry’s letter of 15th January 1925 As to Pleurocera : P. acuta Raf. was described from Lake Erie, but it is a widely spread species, very common in the Ohio and upper Mississippi valleys generally. It may well have been one of Rafinesque’s 1818 species—in fact he must have seen it time and again—but I believe that there is no actual evidence whatever to connect it with any of his 1818 species. Of the latter, several have names applicable enough to acuta, which may be either banded or plain “‘ corneous ”’, . and could be called turreted. There is no hope of finding any of Rafinesque’s specimens of the genus. We have here a set of his Unionidae, but no gastropods; and in a long acquaintance with practically all the old collections in the country, I never came upon any Rafinesquian specimens other than ours. His own collection is supposed to have been burned. There is a manuscript by Rafinesque, ‘‘ Conchologia Ohioensis ”’, in the U.S.N.M. from which W. G. Binney copied a figure of Plewrocera in Smiths. Misc. Coll. No. 144 (1865), p. 62, fig. 126. This figure is a fair (or for Rafinesque, unusually good) representation of a two-thirds grown Plewrocera neglectum Anthony, which is now considered to be a form of P. acutum Raf. Goodrich, who has looked into the matter, considers it a synonym of P. subulare Lea, which is now acknow- ledged to be the same as P. acutum Raf. (Nautilus Vol. 30, p. 124). This figure applies to Pleurocera as that genus was defined in Rafinesque’s second diagnosis. It was so understood by Tryon (Smith. Misc. Coll. No. 253, p. 49) and followed by everybody until Hannibal named P. verrucosa Raf. as type. The latter is a wholly different shell—and I would not think that any of the 1818 specific names of Rafinesque could apply to it. 5. On 18th January, 1928, Dr. Stiles consulted Dr. Paul Bartsch (then Curator of Mollusks and Cenozoic Invertebrates, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) who on 20th January, 1928, replied as follows :— Glancing merely at the evidence presented here, which seems to be complete, for both Pilsbry and Walker have gone over it, the case appears to me quite plain. Rafinesque in defining Pleurocera in 1818, gives such a broad definition that it will hit almost anything in the large conic North American fresh water gastropods. The six names which are associated with this definition are nude names and therefore have no status whatever in nomenclature. The genus consequently at its creation had no type. If my interpretation of Opinion 46 is correct, then the first species described under the generic name after the creation of a genus without type becomes ipso facto the type of that genus. If this is the case, the Rafinesque’s Plewrocera verrucosa will have to serve for that species [i.e. for the type species], unless Pilsbry makes a strong case, that following the Code will cause greater confusion than getting a special ruling from your Commission. 6. On 8th August, 1928, Dr. Stiles forwarded copies of the papers relating to this case to the under-mentioned specialists with a request for their com- ments thereon : (1) Dr. B. B. Woodward (London) ; (2) Mr. Frederick Chapman (National Museum, Melbourne, Australia). The replies received from these Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 specialists were as follows :— (1) Reply, dated 23rd August, 1928, received from Dr. B. B. Woodward : The type of Pleurocera Raf., if the Rules be followed, is clearly P. verrucosa. Rafinesque’s genus as defined by him in 1818 and again in 1819 was obviously a composite, while the species named were not described and cannot, therefore, be considered. In 1820 he described P. verrucosa and this by the Rules and Opionion 46 manifestly becomes the type. Mr. Bryant Walker asserts that verrucosa does not fall within Rafinesque’s original diagnosis, while the statement is made, without proof, in one of the appended papers that it might fall within the first definition, but not within that of 1819. Surely, however, the author himself must have had a better idea of h‘s own conception of his genus Pleurocera than those who sought to interpret it later, and who unfortunately in subdividing the genus assigned its rightful type to one of the new genera. Hence the present trouble. (2) Reply, dated 3rd October, 1928, received from Mr. Frederick Chapman : After studying the opinions and literature on the subject of the type of Pleurocera Raf., it seems clear by the evidence submitted that, by Article 30, Rule II(g), verrucosa, by subsequent designation (by the author himself in this case) becomes the type species. 7. In December 1928, Dr. Stiles wrote to Dr. Pilsbry, stating that he had been collecting the views of specialists on this case and asking, with reference to the concluding portion of his letter of 15th January, 1925 (see paragraph 4 of the present Report), whether Dr. Pilsbry desired to add anything to his application before he (Dr. Stiles) submitted it to the Commission for con- sideration. Dr. Pilsbry replied, on 20th December, 1928, as follows :— I have been thinking about the case of Pleuwrocera since receiving your note. It appears to me that the path of least resistance for all concerned would be to rule Pleurocera verrucosa Raf. out as a genotype on the ground that it does not agree with the definition and select the later species Pl. acuta Raf. as genotype. Rafinesque’s first definition (Amer. Monthly Mag. and Crit. Rev. TI, 1818, 355) was in rather general terms, but he stated that the mouth was diagonal, rhomboidal, the columella flexuous, entire (that is, without plaits or other interruptions). In the following year, he added some further characters (Journ. de Physique, 1819, 423) (Tryon’s reprint p. 25). No described species was mentioned in either paper. f In the comparison below I have used both diagnoses, as it appears only fair to make use of all the data he published for the elucidation of his genus, up to the time when a type would give any other criterion. P Rafinesque’s definition of his Pleurocera verrucosa differs from the original diagnosis of Pleurocera in several important respects, recognised as of generic value before the middle of the last century. I quote two important characters :— Pleurocera P. verrucosa “mouth diagonal, crooked, rhom- [mouth nearly in plain of axis, not boidal ” rhomboidal] “ouverture oblique, oblong, base “ base of the opening obtuse ” prolongée tordue, sommet aigu ” “ Columella flexuous, entire” Pet aC oer eae “Ja columelle qui est lisse et inside ip thickly plaited tordue ” This very well expresses the generic differences in the shells. Pleurocera has the base (anterior end) of the aperture produced in a somewhat twisted spout, and the columellar margin is smooth. In Angitrema verrucosa the aperture is obtuse at base, and the “ inside lip ”, or columellar lip, has thick callous deposits above and below, which Rafinesque referred to as plaits (a term formerly much used for such columellar structures). This is directly opposed to the “ entire ” or “lisse ” of his two diagnoses of Plewrocera. The aperture of P. verrucosa is not rhomboidal, as called for in the original description of Pleurocera. This form of aperture is characteristic of Pleurocera. I donot expect you to go into the conchology of the question, but I am sending you specimens so that you may readily see that Rafinesque’s first species [i.e. P. verrucosa] did not agree with the specifications he had set forth for Plewrocera. His later described P. acuta does agree, 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The group Rafinesque originally intended was doubtless the horn-shaped species common in the Ohio, ete. This is shown by the definitions, the name, and the figure he drew for his “‘ Concho- logia Ohioensis ” (unpublished), which Binney published in ‘“‘ Land and Fresh Water Shells of N.A.”, part 3, page 62, fig. 126 (Smithson. Misc. Coll. No. 144). When he referred the ovate, knobby ‘“ P. verrucosa”? to the genus, probably he had forgotten the characters of his earlier group, or it may be that the devil prompted him. Pleurocera has never been used for any species of the group of ‘‘ P. verrucosa” except by Rafinesque in this one case, though it was designated type by Hannibal. It has universally been used for the numerous group of horn-shaped species of which P. acuta Raf. is a good example. To accept verrucosa as type would muddle the names of two large genera, and for the life of me I cannot see who would gain by it. I have written Bartsch about this, and asked him to we with you. He has never worked with these fresh-water mollusks, but he knows how universally Pleurocera is accepted. I think that, if you could get the consensus of opinion of those dealing with these animals, it Lip be practically unanimous for conserving the present nomenclature. 8. The case of Plewrocera was not placed on the agenda for consideration by the Commission either at its Session held at Padua in 1930, or at that held in Lisbon in 1935, and no reference was made to it on either of these occasions. 9. When, following my election in 1936 as Secretary to the Commission, the records of the Commission were transferred to my custody, I found among them the correspondence relating to the case of Plewrocera summarised in paragraphs 3 to 7 above. This case was thereupon allotted the Registered Number Z.N. (8S) 83, in the new series then established. Unfortunately, pre-occupation with the serious administrative and financial problems facing the Commission consequent upon the transfer of the Secretariat to London, made it impossible for me to make any progress with this and other old cases before the outbreak of war in Europe in September, 1939, put a stop for the time being to the work of the Secretariat of the Commission. When in 1942 it was found possible to reopen the Secretariat, I devoted myself in the first instance to arranging for the publication in the newly established Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of all those of the applications awaiting the attention of the Commission which had reached a sufficiently advanced state to permit of that course. It was not until towards the end of 1944 that I was able to turn to those of the outstanding applications on which further inquiries were necessary before they could be placed before the Commission by being published in the Bulletin. 10. On reading the papers relating to the present case, it was evident that in 1928—the latest date covered by the correspondence concerned—notwith- standing the fact that Plewrocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, was the first nominal species to have been cited under the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque 1818, all interested specialists at that time employed the generic name Pleurocera as though the type species was not the above species but was the species Plewrocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831. The evidence on this subject was, however, by this time sixteen years old and, as I realised, the situation might easily have changed during that period as the result of the acceptance by specialists of Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque as the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque. I considered, therefore, that my first step must be to ascertain whether, since 1928 there had been any change in the practice of specialists in regard to the generic name Pleurocera. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11 11. Not myself possessing any first hand knowledge of the group concerned, I asked the late Mr. R. Winckworth (London) whether he had any information throwing light on the current use of the generic name Plewrocera. Mr. Winck- worth very kindly made a search of the volumes of the Zoological Record for the purpose of ascertaining what changes, if any, had occurred in the practice of specialists in this group of fresh-water mollusks. The following is the Report, dated 16th September, 1944, furnished by Mr. Winckworth on the completion of his search of the literature :— As far as I can gather from references in the Zoological Record for 1931 and later years the name Pleurocera is still regularly used for the genus typified by P. acuta, e.g. by C. Goodrich, “Studies of Pleuroceridae ’’, i-vi (1934-1937) (Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan); by H. J. van Cleave, “* Studies on Pleurocera ” (Nautilus 46 : 29 (1932) and 47 : 48 (1933)) ; by E. M. Kindle in 1934 (Bull. Wagner Free Inst. 9 : 136); so that Hannibal’s observations in 1912 seem to have had no effect, 12. This Report showed that there had been no change since 1928 in the way in which the generic name Plewrocera Rafinesque, 1818, was used by interested specialists. The question in 1944 remained therefore substantially the same as it had been in 1928, namely whether the strict application of the Régles (by the acceptance of Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, as the type species of this genus) would lead to greater confusion than uniformity, the only difference, as compared with 1928, being that that the strict applica- tion of the Régles would overthrow the universal practice not of 50 years but of nearly 70 years. The conclusion which I then formed was that a prima facie case had been established for the use of the plenary powers by the designation of Pleurocera acuta, Rafinesque, 1831, as the type species of Plewrocera Rafinesque, 1818. In view, however, of the length of time which had elapsed since the consultations carried out by my predecessor, I felt that it was desirable to carry out further soundings before the case was submitted to the Commission by being published in the Bulletin, even though the prescribed “ advertisement ” procedure, when later carried out (see paragraph 16 below) would afford an opportunity to interested specialists to place their views before the Commission. Accordingly, in January, 1945, I wrote letters to Dr. Harold A. Rehder (Associate Curator, Division of Mollusks, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) and Professor H. J. van Cleave (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IIl., U.S.A.), asking what would be their attitude towards a settlement of this case, under which, for the pur- pose of avoiding confusion and promoting uniformity, the plenary powers would be used for the purpose of designating Pleuwrocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, as the type species of the genus Plewrocera Rafinesque, 1818. At the same time I wrote to Dr. Pilsbry, the original applicant in this case, putting the same question. The advice received as the result of these further consultations is set out in the following paragraphs. 13. Advice received from Dr. H. A. Pilsbry (letter dated 13th February, 1945). The following is the reply which on 5th March, 1945, I received from Dr. Pilsbry in answer to my letter of 24th January, 1945: In the matter of a genotype for Plewrocera Rafinesque, I still believe that an Opinion confirming P. acuta Raf. as type of Pleurocera would be logical under the conditions existing. As the genus has many species in the eastern U.S. and Canada, such regularisation of current nomenclature would, I think, be accepted gratefully by our fresh-water zoologists, 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 14. Advice received from Dr. Harald A. Rehder (memorandum forwarded under date 3rd March, 1945) : On 26th March, 1945, I received a letter dated 3rd March, 1945, with which Dr. Harald A. Rehder enclosed the following memo- randum setting out his views on the question raised in my letter of 24th January. In his covering letter Dr. Rehder stated that the views expressed in the enclosed memorandum represented the view of Dr. Paul Bartsch (see paragraph 5 of the present Report) and that of Dr. J. P. E. Morrison as well as that of himself : 1. The genotype of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, must be Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque by monotypy. The original generic diagnosis by Rafinesque (Amer. Monthly Mag. 3(5) 355, Sept. 1818) is sufficiently broad and general to cover both P. verrucosa Rafinesque and acuta Rafinesque. Walker’s principal argument (Occ. Papers Mus. Zool. Mus. Univ. Michigan, No. 38, 1917) is therefore based on a faulty premise. 2. The early European workers (Blainville, Rang, Menke, Deshayes, Sowerby, etc.) con- sidered Pleurocera Rafinesque a genus of doubtful position, and the name Ceriphasia Swainson, 1840, came to be adopted for the group now usually called Plewrocera. It was so used by Gray, 1847, H. and A. Adams, 1854, and Chenu, 1859. In this country the elongated shells of this subfamily were all placed in Melania until Lea in the decades 1840-1860 began splitting off well- marked groups as genera. Gill in 1863 separated these American shells from the other Melaniids in a distinct subfamily, Ceriphasiinae, a group that Haldeman in the same year raised to family rank, calling it Strepomatidae (after the unpublished Rafinesquean genus Strepoma, which he considered to equal Ceriphasia ; Pleurocera he equated with Goniobasis Lea). Tryon in 1863 was the first to use Plewrocera Rafinesque for the caniculata Say group (the same as the acuta Rafinesque group), and he has been generally followed by all subsequent writers except Hannibal (Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 10, 169, 1912) and Pilsbry (Nautilus, 30, 110, 114, 1917), both of whom used Plewrocera correctly. 3. It is my opinion that we should adhere to the rules in this case, and that Pleurocera should stand, with verrucosa Rafinesque as type :— (1) Iam in favour of suspending the rules only in exceptional cases, where, for instance, the names concerned cover large or world-wide groups with a long nomenclatorial history, or where the groups in question play an important role outside of the purely taxonomic field, in medicine (parasitology) for instance, or economic geology (stratigraphy, oil geology, etc.). (2) The genera concerned here are relatively small and restricted. If we follow the rules, Pleurocera will replace Angitrema Haldeman, a group of about ten species inhabiting a small circumscribed area from southern Indiana and Illinois through Kentucky and Tennessee to the northern part of Alabama. (3) The whole subfamily is sadly in need of revision, and, when this is done, its classi- fication will be considerably altered, and changes in the names of genera and their limits will have to be made anyway. One of the members of our staff is under- taking this problem now. There are several other valid names of Rafinesque, not now generally accepted, which will have to be used for certain groups in this sub- family. (4) We can, I believe, arrive at a greater stability in nomenclature by keeping excep- tions to the rules at a minimum. Suspensions set a precedent and I am afraid that, if any leniency in this respect is shown, a flood of requests for suspension to the rules will ensue which, if accepted, will result in greater uncertainty and con- fusion than stability in nomenclature. We must remember that our personal preferences and habits as far as the use of certain names goes, should play little part in this question, for there are generations still to come who will not know these prejudices. 15. Advice received from Professor H. J. van Cleave (letter dated 15th March 1945) : The following is the reply which on 10th April, 1945, I received from Professor H. J. van Cleave in answer to my letter of 25th January, 1945 :— I have not had access to the original 1818 description of Plewrocera by Rafinesque. If verrucosa, the first described species to be assigned to the genus, fails to conform to the generic concept of Plewrocera, the designation of verrucosa as type of Plewrocera by Hannibal would necessitate the rejection of the original concept of the genus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 In the meantime, American authors, whether rightly or wrongly, have followed the practice of accepting the concept of acuta as exemplifying the genus Pleurocera. The concept of the genus and the association of the name acuta as type have become firmly fixed in the literature, in the textbooks, and in the minds of American zoologists. I am certain that the formal acceptance of verrucosa as type of Plewrocera would result in widespread confusion. Therefore I favour the retention of the current practice of recognising acuta as type of the genus Plewrocera. Personally, I am not familiar enough with the original literature to be certain that verrucosa would nominally become the accepted type of Pleurocera under strict interpretation of the rules. However, I feel certain that the best interests of stability in nomenclature would be served if the Commission and the Congress were to accept acuta Rafinesque, 1831, as type of the genus Pleurocera, even though in so doing the Commission might find it necessary to exercise their plenary powers to suspend the rules. 16. On 20th November, 1947, an “advertisement ”’ regarding a number of applications received by the Commission for the use of the plenary powers was despatched to Science and Nature, and was published shortly thereafter. Included in the foregoing “‘ advertisement”? was the following item: “‘ Class Gastropoda : to fix Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, as the type of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818.” No objection to the use of the plenary powers in this manner was lodged with the Commission from any source. II. The twofold issue involved 17. Two issues are involved in the present case: the first, factual, the second, a question of policy. The first of these issues is: what species is, under the Régles, the type species of the genus Plewrocera Rafinesque, 1818 ? The second question is whether, if the type species under the Reégles is different from the species commonly accepted as such, the change in nomenclatorial practice which would follow upon the strict application of the Régles in this case would be calculated to cause such confusion that the Commission should step in to stabilise current nomenclatorial practice by using its plenary powers to designate as the type species of the genus Pleurocera a species in harmony with the accepted concept of this genus. These questions are discussed separately in the following paragraphs. 18. Question of the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 : Prior to the meeting at Paris in 1948 of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, there might have been scope for argument as to what species was, under the Régles, the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, for up to that date the only guidance available for determining the type species of a genus established without any species being cited by name was that afforded by the Commission’s Opinion 46, which, as anyone who has tried to apply that Opinion is aware, and as was recognised by the Commission itself at its Paris Session, is both obscure and in part self-contradictory. An entirely new situation was however, created by the decision taken by the Paris Congress, on the advice of the Commission, to clarify and amend the ruling given in the foregoing Opinion, to incorporate in the Régles the decision so clarified and amended, and at the same time to cancel Opinion 46. Under the decision so taken (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 159-160, 346) it is provided that, where a generic name was published prior to lst January, 1931, and no species was cited by name as referable to the genus so named, the first species sub- sequently published under that generic name is, or are, to be regarded as the 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature sole originally included species and therefore that, if on that occasion only one such species was so cited, that species becomes automatically the type species of the genus by monotypy. Turning now to the generic name which forms the subject of the present Report, we find (1) that, when the name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, was first published, no species was or were referred to it by name by its original author, and (2) that, when-on the first subsequent occasion (1820) this generic name was first published in conjunction with a specific name, the author by whom it was so published (Rafinesque himself) cited only one species under this name, that species being a new species Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820. Under the Régles, that species is therefore unquestionably the type species of Plewrocera Rafinesque, 1818, by monotypy. 19. Question whether greater confusion than uniformity would result from the acceptance, as the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, of Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820 (which is the type species under the Régles) in place of Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, the species which has been commonly treated as the type species of this genus : Having now established that under the Régles the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque is a species (Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820) which is not considered by specialists to be con- generic with the species (Plewrocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831) which has com- monly been treated as the type species of this genus, we have to consider a question of an entirely different order, namely whether the strict application of the Régles in this case would lead to greater confusion than uniformity. In this field all that it is possible to do is (1) to ascertain, so far as possible, what is the practice followed by workers who have published papers on the group concerned and to collect the views of present day workers, and (2) having done so, to reach the best decision possible in the light of the evidence so afforded. 20. On the question of what is the current practice in regard to this generic name and what are the views of interested specialists, the available evidence shows :— (1) that it was not until 1912 (ie., until 94 years after the publication of the name Plewrocera Rafinesque, 1818) that it was suggested by Hannibal that under the Régles the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque was Plewrocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, and not Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, which had been selected as the type species by Taylor in 1864, and had been accepted as such by subsequent workers ; (2) that an inspection of the volumes of the Zoological Record for the years subsequent to the publication of Hannibal’s paper (carried out for the Commission by the late Mr. R. Winckworth) shows that Hannibal’s contention was either rejected or ignored by subsequent workers, who continued to treat Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque as the type species of the genus Plewrocera Rafinesque ; (3) that two authors who are shown by the Zoological Record to have published papers on this group, namely, Dr. H. A. Pilsbry (Phila- (5) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 delphia, Pa., U.S.A.) and Professor H. J. van Cleave (Urbana, IIl., U.S.A.), were specially consulted on this question and both emphati- cally support the use by the Commission of its plenary powers to designate Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, as the type species of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 :— (a) Dr. Pilsbry replying that: “such regularization would, I think, be accepted gratefully by our freshwater zoologists ” ; (b) Professor van Cleave replying : “ I am certain that the formal acceptance of verrucosa would result in widespread confusion. Therefore, I favour the retention of the current. practice of recognizing acuta as the type of the genus Plewrocera;” that Dr. Harald A. Rehder (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who was also consulted, replied that he favoured the strict application of the Régles in this case, partly on the ground that the genera concerned were relatively small and restricted but mainly on the ground that, in his opinion ; “‘ We can arrive at a greater stability in nomenclature by keeping exceptions to the rules at a minimum.” Dr. Rehder added that his views in this matter were shared by Dr. Paul Bartsch and Dr. J. P. E. Morrison; that, although the possible use of the plenary powers to designate Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, as the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, was notified to “Science” and “ Nature ” in November, 1947, and was published in those journals shortly thereafter, no objection of any kind to the use of the plenary powers in the manner proposed was subsequently received from any source. II. Conclusions and recommendations (a) Conclusions 21. In submitting the present Report to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for its consideration, I summarize my principal conclusions as follows :— (1) (2) Under the Régles the type species by monotypy of the genus Pleu- rocera Rafinesque, 1818 (a genus established without any included species cited by name) is Plewrocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820 (the sole species cited under the generic name Pleurocera on the first occasion on which any nominal species was so cited). The generic name Plewrocera Rafinesque is currently used as though the type species of the genus so named were Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, that species: having in fact (though erroneously) been selected as the type species by Taylor in 1864. 16 (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The species Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, and Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, are not currently regarded by specialists as congeneric with one another. In consequence of (3) above, the strict application of the Régles in the present case would lead to the transfer of the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque (which forms the basis of a family name PLEUROCERIDAE or, more correctly, PLEUROCERATIDAE) from the genus which at present is known by that name to a genus to which that name has not hitherto been applied. Two specialists in the group concerned (Pilsbry ; van Cleave) con- sider that in order to prevent confusion, the species Plewrocera acuta Rafinesque, 1820, at present currently accepted as the type species of the genus Plewrocera Rafinesque, 1818 should be standardised as such; one specialist (Rehder), who was specially consulted, is opposed tothe use of the plenary powers in the present case, partly because the group is relatively small but mainly on the general ground that, in his view, stability in nomenclature will be best arrived at by keeping exceptions to the Régles as few as possible. The case has been duly advertised and no other specialist has lodged any objection to the use of the plenary powers for the purpose of designating Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1820, as the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818. The position is thus that the use of the plenary powers in the present case is advocated by two specialists who have published on this group and who claim that this view is shared by other workers in the group concerned; none has claimed that the Reégles could be strictly applied in the present case without causing confusion in the group concerned ; three other malacologists are opposed to the use of the plenary powers in this case on grounds not directly connected with the question whether the immediate effect of applying the Régles strictly in the present case will or will not lead to greater confusion than uniformity in the nomenclature of the group concerned. Tn view of (5) and (6) above, it appears to me to be clear that some confusion would certainly arise if the Régles were to be strictly applied to the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818. The question which has next to be considered is whether the degree of confusion so caused would be likely to be greater than the uniformity obtained by applying the Régles strictly in this case, and therefore whether this is a case in which it would be appropriate for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to prevent that confusion from arising. In considering the question raised in (7) above, it is necessary to pay strict regard to the purposes for which in 1913 the International Congress of Zoology conferred plenary powers upon the Inter- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and, in doing so, to note that one of the purposes expressly stipulated by the Congress was the avoidance of confusing transfers of names from one taxo- nomic unit to another. In the present case the strict application of the Regles would involve such a transfer, for the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, would need to be transferred from the genus to which it has for long been applied to a genus which has hitherto been known by some other name. (9) Having regard to the evidence set forth in the present Report and summarised in (5) and (6) above, I have reached the following conclusions :— (a) that, unless there has been any material change in the situation since this case was “ advertised” in 1947, greater confusion than uniformity would arise from the strict application of the Reégles to the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 ; (b) that, in view of (a) above and having regard also to the fact that in the present case the strict application of the Regles would lead to a result (the transfer of a name from one taxonomic unit to another), the prevention of which was one of the express purposes for which the plenary powers were instituted, the proper course in the present case would be for the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to use its plenary powers for the purpose of desig- nating as the type species of the genus Plewrocera Rafinesque, 1818, the species (Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831) currently accepted as such. (b) Recommendation 22. In the light of the conclusions set forth above, I recommend that the International Commission Zoological Nomenclature should : (1) use its plenary powers— (a) to set aside all designations or selections of type species for the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, made prior to the decision now proposed to be taken ; (b) to designate Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, to be the type species of the foregoing genus: (2) place the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (type species, by designation under the plenary powers under (1) (6) above: Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place the trivial name acuta Rafinesque, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination Pleurocera acuta) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED VALIDATION OF “ APHIDIUS” NEES, 1818 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS By W. D. HINCKS (Department of Zoology, University Museum, Manchester, England) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)149) The well-known genus Aphidius Nees, 1818, was established in Nova Acta Acad. Caes. Leop. Carol. 9 : 302, for two species, namely Bracon picipes Nees, 1811, Mag. Ges. Nat. Fr., Berlin 5 (1): 28, and Bracon exoletus Nees, 1811, ibid. § (1) : 30. Ichneumon aphidum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 568, was selected as the type species by Curtis, 1831 (Brit. Ent. 8 : 383) but this selection is invalid since that species was not originally included in the genus by Nees. Foerster’s selection (1862, Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. 19 : 248) of Aphidius rosae Haliday, 1833 (Ent. Mag. 1 : 261) as the type species is untenable for the same reason. Viereck, 1914 (Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 83 : 14) stated that the type species of Aphidius Nees was Bracon picipes Nees, 1811, but as this is a species in- quirenda, he preferred to follow Foerster’s interpretation. In 1942, Essig published a work under the title of “‘ College Entomology ” (New York, The Macmillan Company), in which he used (: 644) the family name INCUBIDAE for APHIDIIDAE and (: 645) sank Aphidius Nees as a synonym of Incubus Schrank, 1802. Incubus Schrank, 1802, was established in Fauna boica 22315, for Ich- neumon aphidum Linnuaes, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 568, and is monotypical. This genus is identical with Aphidius Nees but the name Incubus Schrank has never previously been used. The replacement of Aphidius Nees by the obsolete name Jncubus Schrank and the alteration of the family name from APHIDIIDAE to INCUBIDAE would clearly cause more confusion than uniformity. This seems to me therefore a case where the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature could properly exercise their plenary powers to prevent confusion from arising in the nomenclature of this group. The identity of neither of the two species originally included by Nees in the genus Aphidius Nees is altogether free from doubt, though personally I consider that Bracon picipes Nees can properly be identified with Aphidius avenae Haliday, 1834, Ent. Mag. 2 (1):99. This is the view taken by the former leading authority, Marshall (1896, in André, Spec. Hymen. Eur. 5 (1) : 574), though it is true that on that occasion Marshall overlooked the prior description (1811) of Nees, as will be noted from the following quotation : “Le synonyme picipes Nees, portant la méme date que le nom spécifique imposé par Haliday, la priorité reste dans le doute ; j’ai donc préféré l’auteur Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 de la meilleure description.” The first author to introduce the doubt reflected by Viereck, as mentioned above, was the cataloguer Dalla Torre, 1898, Cat. Hymenopt. 4 + 5. If the rules are to be suspended for the purpose of validating the name Aphidius Nees, 1818, it is very desirable that at the same time the International Commission should designate as the type species of this genus a species the identity of which is free from doubt, for, in the case of a group of species of considerable economic importance such as that now under consideration, it is important to secure that there shall be no opportunity for doubt by reason of the nomenclature employed. The most appropriate type species for the genus Aphidius Nees, 1818, appears to me to be Aphidius avenae Haliday, 1834, (a) because the type specimen of this species is in the British Museum (Natural History) and therefore readily available for consultation and (b) because that species (as already stated) is almost certainly identical with Bracon picipes Nees, 1811, the species which, under the Code, is the type species of the genus Aphidius Nees. The difficulties in the present case would, therefore, be completely solved if the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting under their plenary powers, were to (i) suppress the name Incubus Schrank, 1802, (ii) validate Aphidius Nees, 1818, (ii) designate Aphidius avenae Haliday, 1834, as the type species of Aphidius Nees, 1818, (iv) place the name Aphidius Nees, 1818 (gender masculine), and with the above species as its type species, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, (v) place the trivial name avenae Haliday, 1834 (as published in the binominal combination Aphidius avenae), on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (vi) place the generic name Incubus Schrank, 1802, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF “ APHIDIUS” NEES, 1818 (CLASS INSECTA ORDER HYMENOPTERA) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS By E. O. ESSIG (Division of Entomology and Parasitology, University of California, Berkeley California) (Extract from a letter dated 20th October, 1943, from Professor Essig to the Secretary to the International Commission) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)149) I very greatly appreciate your kind letter of 22nd September, in which you indicate that application has been made for the suspension of the Rules for the purpose of suppressing the name Jncubus Schrank and for validating Aphidius Nees. I heartily recommend this procedure. I was very hesitant to make the radical changes which appear in “ College Entomology,” but I reasoned that only by so doing can these matters be permanently straightened out. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 ON THE QUESTION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE GENERIC NAME “LEPTOPSYLLA” ROTHSCHILD & JORDAN, 1911 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER SIPHONAPTERA) By KARL JORDAN, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)166) I petition the International Commission to terminate a controversy regarding the correct generic name for the House-Mouse Flea. This species was first described as Pulex segnis by Schénherr in 1811, K. Vet. Acad. N ya Handl. 32 (2): 98. As this flea is frequently referred to in the literature of Public Hygiene as Ctenopsyllus segnis and also as Leptopsylla segnis, it is a matter of practical importance that the International Commission should decide which of these generic names is the correct one for this species. The name Ctenopsyllus appears for the first time in print in Kolenati, 1856, Die Parasiten der Chiroptern: 31. Kolenati’s book was issued in identical form at Briinn in 1856 and at Dresden in 1857. The latter is the issue usually found and in consequence new names published by Kolenati in this work are commonly (but erroneously) dated “1857” instead of “1856”. There is a copy of the scarce original Briinn issue in the library of the Zoological Museum, Tring. Kolenati there described several species of bat-flea, employing for them the generic name Ceratopsyllus Curtis, 1838, Brit. Entom. 15 (180) : errata in Index (an emendation of Ceratophyllus Curtis, 1831, Guide brit. Ins. (7) : 201). In a footnote to the name Ceratopsyllus Curtis, Kolenati said (: 31) (trans- lation): “ From Kepas, KEpaTOS horn and WWAAos flea, should really be called Ctenopsyllus from xteis, KtTevos the comb, because the species bear combs, so-called ctenidia, at the posterior margin of the pro- and meta-notum and often also on some terga, by means of which they hold on, hairs of the host being caught in between when the combs are pressed on to the segments ”’. In 1863, Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 2:37, Kolenati gave to a “subgenus” of Ctenophthalmus Kolenati, 1857, Paras. Chiroptern : 33, the name Ctenopsyllus, ignoring altogether the fact that he had previously published this name in 1856. On this occasion, Kolenati described two species, the first as Ctenopsyllus quadridentatus (which is the same species as Pulex segnis Schénherr, 1811, referred to above), the second as Ctenopsyllus bidentatus, a distinct and at that time new species. The first of these species was selected as the type species of this genus by Baker in 1904 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 27: 371) (as Pulex muscult). In 1911, Novit. zool. 18 : 85, Jordan and Rothschild published the name Leptopsylla nom. nov. for “ Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1862 nec 1856 ” (the first of these years should have been cited as “ 1863 ” not “ 1862 ”). The type species of this genus by original designation is Pulex musculi Dugés, 1832 (Ann. Sei. nat. 27 : 163), which is the same species as Pulex segnis. This name Lep- topsylla for the House-Mouse Flea and some similar species has been rejected by some specialists and accepted by others. The question on which an Opinion from the Commission is now desired is 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature whether the action by Jordan and Rothschild, 1911, was correct or wrong. In other words, was Ctenopsyllus published in 1856 as another name for Ceratopsyllus Curtis, 1838, and is it available from 1856 2 The decision one way or the other will affect a number of similar cases, where authors have tentatively published names which they thought were “ better” or otherwise more suitable names than names already published. ON THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE GENERIC NAMES “ CTENOPSYLLUS ” KOLENATI, 1863, AND “ LEPTOPSYL- LA” JORDAN AND ROTHSCHILD, 1911, AS THE GENERIC NAME OF THE HOUSE-MOUSE FLEA (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER SIPHONAPTERA) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 166) The point raised by Dr. Karl Jordan regarding the relative merits from the nomenclatorial point of view of the generic names Ctenopsyllus Kolenati and Leptopsylla Jordan and Rothschild turns on the question whether the manner in which the name Ctenopsyllus was published by Kolenati in 1856 was such as to confer availability upon it under the Régles. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1856, applies not to the House-Mouse Flea, but to a group of Bat Fleas. If, on the other hand, the answer to the foregoing question is in the negative, the name Ctenopsyllus ranks for purposes of priority as from Kolenati, 1863, and is applicable to the House-Mouse Flea. This question was reviewed in 1911 by Jordan and Rothschild, who came to the conclusion that, despite the unsatisfactory way in which the name Clenopsyllus had been published by Kolenati in 1856, that name has nevertheless acquired rights under the Law Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 of Priority in virtue of having been so published, and was accordingly applicable to the Bat Fleas. In the light of this conclusion, the name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863, as applied to the House-Mouse Flea became an invalid (because junior) homonym of the name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1856. The House-Mouse Flea was thus left without an available generic name and it was to meet this de- ficiency that Jordan and Rothschild published the name Leptopsylla. The Commission are now asked to decide whether the argument advanced by Jordan and Rothschild was in accordance with the Regles or not and therefore whether the name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863, or the name Leptopsylla Jordan and Rothschild, 1911, is the generic name properly applicable to the House- Mouse Flea. 2. The question with which we are here confronted is the status to be accorded under the Régles to a name that was rejected by its author at the time when it was first published and was treated by that author as a synonym of some other name. One aspect of this case was dealt with by the Commission as long ago as 1907 when they rendered Opinion 4, in which they ruled that a manuscript name acquired availability under the Régles when it was published with an “indication ’’, irrespective of whether or not the author by whom it was published himself accepted the name as an available name or whether he sunk it as a synonym of some other (older) name. Another aspect of this case was dealt with by the Commission in 1912 when in Opinion 49 they ruled that the status of a name was not to be regarded as being adversely affected by reason of the name having been published conditionally. Both the foregoing interpretations of Article 25 were incorporated into the Regles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Paris in 1948. (For the terms of the decision in relation to Opinion 4, see Proceedings of the Com- mission, Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 4, and for that in relation to Opinion 49, ibid. 6th Meeting, Conclusion 17, published in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 144-146.) 3. The name Ctenopsyllus was admittedly published by Kolenati in 1856 as a conditional name, but, as we have seen, this does not deprive that name of any rights which it may otherwise possess under the Law of Priority. It is agreed also that, when Kolenati published this name in 1856, he himself rejected it and treated it as a synonym of an earlier name (Ceratophyllus Curtis, 1838) ; but, as we have seen, the rejection of a name by its original author at the time of its first publication does not deprive that name of its rights under the Law of Priority if as here (through its identification with Cerato- phyllus Curtis) it is published with an indication. We see therefore that the name Ctenopsyllus, as published by Kolenati in 1856, cannot be rejected either on the ground that it was published conditionally or on the ground that it was rejected by its original author. It was in fact published as an emendation (on etymological grounds) of an earlier generic name ; its status from the present point of view is therefore the same as that of any other emen- dation. Now we know from the decision in Opinion 148, since clarified and incorporated into the Régles (Proceedings of the Commission, Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 44, see 1950, Bull zool. Nomencl. 4 : 163) that “a generic name is to be rejected as a homonym, where the word of which that 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature name consists has previously been published as an emendation, whether valid or invalid, of another generic name”. It is clear from the foregoing passage, which is a direct quotation from the Paris Proceedings, that the Ctenopsyllus as published by Kolenati in 1856 renders invalid, as a junior homonym, any later use of the word Ctenopsyllus as a generic name applied to some other group, for example, the later use of this name by Kolenati himself in 1863. (It is of interest to note that at Paris, 9th Meeting, Con- clusion 20, the record of which was published in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4: 256, the Commission considered a case relating to a trivial name, which resembles very closely the case here under discussion, for that was a case where (as here) an author (Strand) published a name (aegyptiellus) which he in fact rejected (just as in 1856 Kolenati rejected the emendation Cienopsyllus which he then published for the first time). In this case the Commission ruled that the trivial name aegyptiellus having been published by Strand with an indication was not damnified by reason of having been rejected by its original author at the time when it was first published, and, therefore, that this trivial name was available, as from the date on which it had been first published by Strand.) 4. For the reasons set forth above, it is clear that Jordan & Rothschild acted in strict accordance with the Reégles, when, in 1911, they rejected Ctenop- syllus Kolenati, 1863, as an invalid homonym of Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1856, and therefore those authors were fully justified when they gave a new generic name (Leptopsylla) for the House-Mouse Flea. 5. In his application in relation to this case Dr. Jordan raised a point of importance, which requires to be considered, when he observed that the name to be given to the House-Mouse Flea was a matter of concern to workers in the field of Public Hygiene, some of whom had adopted the name Leptopsylla, while others had continued to use the name Ctenopsyllus. From this point of view, the present case resembles closely the case of the names Bilharzia and Schistosoma dealt with by the Commission in Paris (Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 11, for the record of which see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4: 319-323). In that case the Commission was satisfied that the name Bilharza had been validly published with an indication by Meckel von Hemsbach in 1856, and therefore had priority over the name Schistosoma Weinland, 1858, but decided that, in view of the view of the fact that in medical literature the name Schistosoma had come to be much more widely used than the name Bilharzia, the balance of advantage lay in suppressing the latter name under their plenary powers, and in validating the name Schistosoma. In these circumstances, it appeared to me desirable to obtain a preliminary expression of opinion from a leading Public Hygiene authority, in order to ascertain whether on public hygiene grounds there was any case for using the plenary powers in order to validate Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863 (by suppressing the earlier name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1856) in preference to applying the Regles in this case in the ordinary way. 6. At this point therefore, I consulted Sir John Charles, Principal Medical Officer of Health, Ministry of Health in the United Kingdom, who replied (on 17th August, 1950) that ‘“‘ though references to the house mouse flea in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 Public Health literature are not numerous, there seems to be general agree- ment with the name of Leptopsylla segnis, and that so far as the literature of public hygiene is concerned, it would be preferred.” 7. In these circumstances it appears to me that there is no case for the use of the plenary powers and that the appropriate course would be for the Commission, after noting that the name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863 (applied to the House Mouse Flea) is an invalid junior homonym of the name Ctenop- syllus Kolenati, 1856 (a name applied to a group of Bat Fleas), (1) to place the generic name Leptopsylla Rothschild & Jordan, 1911 (Novit. Zool. 18 : 85), (type species, by original designation : Pulexr musculi Dugés, 1832 (Ann. Sci. nat. 27 (106): 163) (=Pulex segnis Schiinherr), 1811 (K. Sv. Vetensk Acad., Nya Handl. 32 (No. 2): 98) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, (2) to place the generic name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863 (Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 2 : 37) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, and (3) to place the trivial name segnis Schénherr, 1811 (as published in the binominal combination Pulex segnis) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE TRIVIAL NAME “ AJAX” LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “PAPILIO AJAX”) COMMONLY BUT INCORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE SPECIES NAMED “PAPILIO MARCELLUS” BY CRAMER IN 1777 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By the late A. STEVEN CORBET (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)192) In Linnaeus’ original diagnosis of Papilio ajax in 1758, Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 462, the very brief description (‘‘ P/apilio/ E/ques/ alis obtuse caudatis concoloribus fuscis : fasciis falvescentibus, angulo ani fulvo”’) is followed by two citations and an indication of the habitat as follows :— Raj. wns. 111. n. 2 Edw. av. 34 “ Habitat in America boreali.”’ There is no mention of P. xuthus in the 10th edition and the description of P. ajax is followed by that of P. machaon. There is no mention of P. ajax in 1764, Mus. Lud. Ulr. but in 1767, in the 12th edition (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 750) the description of P. ajax is repeated precisely as in the 10th edition. On the following page in the 12th edition, appears the first description of P. xanthus (corrected to xuthus in the index), with “ Habitat in India orientali’”’ and “‘ Simillimus P. Ajaci.”” The diagnosis of P. xuthus is more detailed than that of P. ajax and there are no references to works of other authors. While there has been no doubt regarding the identity of P. ruthus, much confusion has been associated with the determination of P. ajax; in fact, so involved had the position become that Rothschild and Jordan abandoned the name in their “ Revision of the American Papilios ” in 1906 (Novit. zool. 13 : 413-414). This confusion would not have arisen, had the Linnean collec- tion been adequately studied, for therein is an undoubted Linnean specimen, low-set on a long, black, headless pin of the type which I called a “‘ Cantonese pin ”’ in an earlier paper (Corbet, 1942, Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 11:91), and labelled “ ajax” in Linnaeus’ writing and “ xuthus 751” by Smith. The specimen in question is P. xuthus and the pin may be taken as evidence of its Cantonese origin ; almost certainly, it is one of the butterflies obtained by Peter Osbeck when he visited Canton in 1751. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 In Linnaeus’ own copy of the 10th edition of the Syst. Nat., there is the following manuscript note added to the description of P. ajax. “Simillimus Machaon, sed magis flavis. Valde affinis Ajax, Machaon, Podalirius,. Antilochus, Protesilaus.”’ P. ajax is among the species marked by Linnaeus as being in his collection in his own copy of the 12th edition, while zuthus is not so marked. There is nothing in the description of P. ajax in either the 10th or 12th editions, which conflicts with what must clearly be regarded as the type specimen. It appears that Linnaeus described this same species again under the name zanthus (recte xuthus) from the same or another specimen, but this is not a unique occurence for both P. aonis and P. lemonias were described in the 10th edition from specimens of the dry-season form of the same species of Precis and, in the same volume, Linnaeus published names for three nominal “species ’’, based upon specimens of two species only (Papilio perius and P. hylas). Unfortunately, however, the Linnean collection was not avail- able to the early authors and, even if it had been, no convincing conclusion could have been drawn without research into the manner of setting, pinning and labelling, in order to judge the authenticity of any supposed Linnean specimens. The early entomologists were obliged to identify P. ajax on the basis of the meagre description and the conflicting citations and in consequence mistakes were inevitable. The Linnean description of P. ajax applies equally well to several species of Papilio (sensu stricto) of similar facies and the references to Edwards and Ray, do nothing to clarify the position. The reference to Edwards, 1743, Natural History of Uncommon Birds 1 : 34, t. 34 given in the 1758 description of P. ajax was cited under P. protesilaus by Linnaeus in 1764, Mus. Lud. Ulr., and yet again referred to P. ajax in 1767 in the 12th edition of the Syst. Nat. According to Rothschild and Jordan (1906, Novit. zool., 13: 413), Edwards’ figure cannot be reconciled with the Linnean description of P. ajax and, in fact, represents the American species well known as Papilio marcellus Cramer [1777]. The reference to Ray, 1710, Historia Insectorum : 111 (no. 2), depends on a reference by the latter author to a rather fantastic figure in Moufet, 1634, Insectorum sive Minimorum Animalium Theatrum : 98 which Rothschild and Jordan identified as the American species P. glaucus Linnaeus, 1758. The coloured figure labelled ‘“‘ ajax 26 ”’ in Clerck, 1764, Icones Insectorum rariorum 2: +. 33. fig. 3 (a figure which was certainly seen by Linnaeus before publica- tion) represents yet another American species, P. polyxenes Fabricius, 1775. In view of this confusion of figures by Linnaeus, Rothschild and Jordan considered the wisest course was to discard the name ajaz altogether ; on the other hand, Holland (1931, The Butterfly Book, Revised Edition : 321) continued to employ the name for the species P. marcellus Cramer, to which the name ajaz had been applied since Linnaeus’ day, In the interests of stability of 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature zoological nomenclature, it is clearly undesirable to leave the matter as it stands. Hither the name ajax should be employed for the species which would be so designated under the usual procedure based on the Reégles Inter- nationales or application should be made to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a suspension of the Rules in order to invalidate the name ajax on the grounds that a strict enforcement of the law of priority would result in greater confusion than uniformity. In my opinion, there is no doubt that the name Papilio ajax Linnaeus, 1758, should be applied to the oriental species universally known as Papilio xuthus Linnaeus, 1767. In previous papers I have attempted the identifica- tion of the Linnean names of oriental Rhopalocera by taking as the type specimen of the respective nominal species : (a) the specimen(s) in the Museum of Queen Ludovica Ulrica in the case of species where Linnaeus added the letters ““ M.L.U.,” to his original description. (With a few species marked ‘“‘M.L.U.” in the descriptions, the specimens were missing from the Queen’s collection but I found them in the Linnean collection.) (b) the specimen(s) in the Linnean collection when these were identifiable as Linnean with reasonable certainty and where the original description contained no reference to “ M.L.U.” (c) a figure cited by Linnaeus when the species was not in the Queen’s or the Linnean collection. It appears that in only two instances among the oriental butterflies (P. helena and P. eryx) did Linnaeus rely entirely on figures. It has been found that, if the above principles are followed, there is little or no trouble regarding the Linnean names of oriental Rhopalocera as these would continue to be employed in the sense used by the older authors. On the other hand, if preference were given to figures cited by Linnaeus over specimens in the Queen’s museum and the Linnean collection, ambiguity and uncertainty must follow. It has been pointed out in a previous paper (Corbet, 1942, loc. cit : 91) that, although Sir James Edward Smith added to the Linnean collection after he purchased it, there is no evidence of label-changing and in very few instances is there more than a single pin-hole in the original label. Every- thing points to the specimen of P. xuthus referred to above as having been labelled “ajax” by Linnaeus, and it has every claim to be regarded as the type specimen of P. ajax and as such I consider it. Thus, if the International Rules are followed the species long-known as P. xuthus will in future have to be known as P. ajax Linnaeus and the former name will sink as a synomym. This would be deplorable, not so much because a well-known name would disappear, but because of the uncertainty which has surrounded the name P. ajaz in the past. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 The name P. ajax Linnaeus has been applied almost consistently although, incorrectly, to P. marcellus Cramer and a voluminous literature has grown up around this name, and I think it will be conceded that its suppression is in the best interests of entomology. It is accordingly hoped that the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will exercise the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Congress of Zoology, and promulgate an Opinion to the following effect :— The name Papilio ajax Linnaeus, 1758, is not to be employed for the species generally known as Papilio zuthus Linnaeus, 1767, although it has priority over this latter name, nor is it to be used for any other species, ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THE TRIVIAL NAME “ AJAX” LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “ PAPILIO AJAX ”) SHOULD BE SUPPRES- SED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLO- GICAL NOMENCLATURE UNDER ITS PLENARY POWERS By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 192) The late Dr. A. Steven Corbet, who at the time of his death was undoubtedly the foremost authority on the Linnean butterflies, has shown that the type specimen of the nominal species Papilio ajax Linnaeus, 1758, is still preserved in the Linnean collection in London and that, contrary to the universal belief of all previous workers (none of whom had studied the Linnean collection) the name Papilio ajax was not bestowed by Linnaeus upon a Nearctic species but upon the well-known Palaearctic and Oriental species to which Linnaeus himself in 1767 gave the name Papilio xuthus, by which it has ever since been known. On making the foregoing disconcerting discovery, the late Dr. Corbet realised at once the appalling nature of the confusion which would ensue if, after having been applied for nearly two hundred years to Nearctic species, the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com- bination Papilio ajax) were now to be applied to a very well-known species belonging to an entirely different z00-geographical region, a species, moreover, which had been known by the trivial name (xuthus Linnaeus, 1767) currently applied to it ever since that name had been published nearly two hundred years ago. It was for this reason that in 1946 Dr. Corbet submitted to the Tnternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a request that it should use its plenary powers to prevent the confusion which would be quite inevitable if the Régles were to be strictly applied in the present case. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The question which has now to be considered is therefore how best the International Commission could use its plenary powers to secure the desired end. There are two possible courses of action, each of which possesses certain advantages : (1) to suppress the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758, altogether ; (2) tosecure that the foregoing trivial name shall in future apply not to the species (Papilio xuthus Linnaeus, 1767) to which, as Dr. Corbet has shown, it properly belongs under a strict application of the Reégles, but to the Nearctic species to which it is now usually applied. Course (1) would suffice to secure the principal object in view, namely, to prevent the confusion which would follow if the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758, were to replace the trivial name zuthus Linnaeus, 1767, for the well- known species to which that name has always been applied. If this course were to be adopted, the Nearctic species to which the name ajax Linnaeus, 1758, is currently applied would need to be found a new name. Course (2), like Course (1), would prevent the confusion which would result from the transfer of the trivial name ajax Linnaeus to the species now known as Papilio xuthus. In addition, Course (2) would preserve the trivial name ajax Linnaeus for the Nearctic species, to which it is commonly applied. Course (2) corresponds exactly to the action taken by the Commission in regard to the trivial name zis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio iris) ; in that case also, Dr. Corbet had brought forward evidence to show that a trivial name (777s) invariably applied toa very well-known European species (‘The Purple Emperor”) properly applied to an allied, and also very well-known European species (Papilio ila [Schiffermiller and Denis], 1775). In that case, the Commission, in order to prevent the confusion which such a transfer of the trivial name iris would inevitably entail, used their plenary powers to direct that this trivial name was in future to apply to the common European “ Purple Emperor,” and selected a well- known and easily accessible figure of that butterfly to be the figure by which the nominal species Papilio wis Linnaeus, 1758 (= Apatura iris (Linnaeus, 1758) ) was in future to be identified (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 540- 542). Under Course (2) similar action could be taken to preserve the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758, for the North American Swallowtail commonly known by that name. The question whether or not it is desirable that the trivial name ojaxr Linnaeus, 1758, should be preserved in the manner described above for the species to which that name is commonly used, is a matter of special interest to American lepidopterists, and is accordingly a question on which it would be valuable to the Commission to have the advice of such specialists. It is therefore particularly requested that any lepidopterist who is interested in this subject, should notify his views to the Commission as soon as possible. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGN- ATE “ MYTILUS EDULIS ” LINNAEUS, 1758, AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ MYTILUS” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS PELECYPODA, ORDER FILIBRANCHIATA) (PROPOSED VALIDATION OF AN ENTRY IN THE “OFFICIAL LIST” MADE IN OPINION 94 By HAROLD E. VOKES (Department of Geology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, M aryland, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)193) The generic name Mytilus was proposed by Linnaeus, 1758, with 17 species numbered 205 to 222 inclusive (Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, (ed. 10) 1: 704-706); the species concerned in this request being edulis, No. 215, cygneus, No. 218, and anatinus, No. 219. No type species was designated nor indicated in this publication. Lamarck (1799, “ Prodrome d’une nouvelle classification des coquilles ” : (Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1799 : 88) cited M. edulis as an example, but this cannot be construed as fixing the type species. Schumacher (1817, Essai d’un nouveau systeme de habitations de Vers Lestacés: 107) cites “the figure of a hinge of ” Anodonta anatina (Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus) as type species of the genus Mytilus. This selection transfers the generic name Mytilus to the fresh-water bivalve Anodonta Lamarck, 1799 (supra cit. L87, monotype A. cygneus (Mytilus cygeus Linnaeus)). Children [April 1823, Lamarck’s Genera of Shells : Quart. J. Sci. 1823 : 33] selected Mytilus magellanicus Lamarck as type of Mytilus “ Lamarck”. This species was not on the Linnean list and was therefore not available for selection as the type species of Mytilus Linnaeus. Anton (1839, Verzeichniss der Conchylien: 17) selected M ytilus edulis Linnaeus as the type species of Mytilus, and this is apparently the first selection of this species, which is today universally considered as the type species usually with a reference to Gray’s citation of 1847. (Gray, J. E., 1847, “ A list of the genera of recent mollusca their synonyma and types.” Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15: 198). So far as I am aware, no subsequent author has followed Schumacher’s selection of Mytilus anatinus as the type species of the genus M ytilus Linnaeus, and to do so now would result in complete confusion, requiring the substitution of the name Mytilus for the fresh-water Anodonta, and apparently the proposal of a new name for the group of species which now bear that name; so far as I am aware, no other name has ever been proposed for the species of the edulis group. 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Furthermore, both the generic name Mytilus Linnaeus, with type species M. edulis Linnaeus, and Anodonta Lamarck, with type species A. cygneus (Linnaeus), have been placed on the Official Last of Generic Names, under Opinion 94. This procedure, however, was clearly the result of inadequate study, since, in the “ Statement of Case ” issued with this Opinion, it is said : “ Tt appears from the reports reaching the Secretary’s office that ... [these] . . names are valid under the International Rules and that, therefore, they do not have to be adopted as ‘nomina conservanda’ under ‘ Suspension of the Rules ’.” From the evidence cited above, the latter statement is clearly imaccurate, and the position of Mytilus, with type Mytilus edulis, is an equivocal one. It is, therefore, requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, using the plenary powers granted it by the International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco (1913), suspend the Rules in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and declare Mytilus edulis Linnaeus to be the type species of Mytilus Linnaeus under such suspension of the Rules. pore e2D 21 APR 1951 CONTENTS : (continued from front wrapper) Principles adopted in the selection of applications for immediate publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : Decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature he of Personnel of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : Death of Commissioner Paul Rode Retirement of Commissioner Karl Jordan Election of Commissioners REPORT on the question whether, in order to avoid confusion in nomenclature, it is desirable that the plenary powers should be used by the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature to vary the type species of the genus Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda, Order Mesogastropoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Proposed validation of Aphidius Nees, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) under the plenary powers. By W. D. Hincks, Department of Zoology, University Museum, Man- chester, England - ‘se . On the proposed validation of Aphidius Nees, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) under the plenary powers. By E. O. Essig, Division of Entomology and Parasitology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A. .. Le : On the question of the availability of the generic name Leptop- sylla Rothschild & Jordan, 1911 (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera). By Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (Honorary Life President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature), British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, England « aA sy. f oy On the relative merits of the generic names Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863, and Leptopsyila Rothschild & Jordan, 1911, as the generic name of the House-Mouse Flea (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature “e 4 si : Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combin- ation Papilio ajax) commonly but incorrectly applied to the species named Papilio marcellus by Cramer in 1777 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By the late A. Steven Corbet, British Museum (Natural History), London .. ry ue On the proposal that the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ajax) should be suppressed by the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature under its plenary powers. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ap Pe a Oe 18 20 21 22 26 29 (continued from overleaf ) Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate Mytilus edulis Page Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of the genus Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Pelecypoda, Order Filibranchiata) (proposed validation of an entry in the “‘ Official List ” made in Opinion 94). By Harold E. Vokes Department of Geology, The Fohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. 31 NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS The concluding Part (comprising Title Page and indexes) of Volume | is now in the press and will be published shortly. INQUIRIES All inquiries regarding publications should be addressed to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and all inquiries regarding the scientific work of the Commission to the Secretary to the Commission at the following addresses :— International Trust for. Zoological Nomenclature: 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Secretariat of the Commission, 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. Printed in Great Britain by Metcuim anv Son, Ltp., Westminster, London VOLUME 2. Part 2 20th April, 1951 pp. 33-64. q THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL | NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of a THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOQLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ~< aS 7) Bae bs sts ee : Jo iy 4 HPP ‘991 , os 2 Edited by \ararest FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CONTENTS : 4 Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on eS Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published 4 . in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Pas aig 33 : | Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on ¥ Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain if cases a ch ae F 34 (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : ‘Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1951 Price Ten shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL =: NOMENCLATURE | A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference tc date of election or of most recent re- election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (1st January 1944) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (Ist January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (1st January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (Ist January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cahrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Peirre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (6th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Honorary Secretary and Managing Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust ar bee of the Commission : 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1 Offices of the Trust : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 ow BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3 Volume 2, Part 2. (pp. 33 - 64) 20th April, 1951 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the * Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publica- tion in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (Vol. 2, Part 2) of the Bulletin, is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature (Volume 2, Part 2) in relation to the following names :— (1) Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda, Order Tectibranchiata (Z.N.(S.)378). (2) Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758 (Z.N.(8.)377). (3) Rantus Dejean, 1833 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (Z.N.(8.)171). (4) Acantholyda Costa, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) and Acanthocnema Becker, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (Z.N. (S.) 175). (5) Rhina Latreille, [1802-1803], and Magdalis Germar, 1817 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (Z.N.(8.)202). (6) Cardinia Agassiz, [1841] (Class Lamellibranchiata) (Z.N.(8.)208). 2. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:56), corresponding Notices have been sent to the journals ‘“ Nature” and “ Science.” f FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commassion on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 10th April, 1951. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALID- ATE THE GENERIC NAME “ SCAPHANDER ” MONTFORT, 1810 (CLASS GASTROPODA, ORDER TECTIBRANCHIATA) By HENNING LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)378) The object of the present application is to seek the assistance of the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in providing a valid basis for the well-known generic name Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda, Order Tectibranchiata). The facts relating to this case are set out in the follow- ing paragraphs. Gioéni (G.) in 1783 (Deser. nuov. fam... . di Testacei trovati nel littorale di Catama: 25) described an “animal”, which proved to be the stomach of Bulla lignaria Linnaeus, 1758, (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 727). The specimen described was given the name “ Gioéni’’; this, being uninominal, possesses no status in zoological nomenclature. A year later, however, Philipsson (not Retzius, as incorrectly stated by some authors) cited the record of “ Gioéni”’ under the binominal name T'ricla gioéni (1788, Diss. Hist. nat. sist. nova Test. Gen. : 8). Further, Bruguiére in 1789 (Ency. méth. Hist. nat. Vers 1: XII) referred to the reference to Gioéni’s “ Gioéni”’, which he cited under the generic name Gioénia ; the sole species referred to by him—and therefore the type species by monotypy—he later cited under the name Groénia sicula (1792, ibid. 2: 502). These “ stomach-names ”’ were not accepted by zoologists who have univer- sally applied to the species in question the first generic name to be applied to the shell proper. This name is Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (Conch. syst. Class. meth. Coquilles 2: 335); the type species of this genus is Bulla lignaria Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy. Further information is to be found in a paper by the present writer (Lemche, 1948, Danske Vid. Selsk. iol. (5)3 : 86-88), in which are enumerated all available records of this species from the North Atlantic ; in the same paper is given a list of all known synonyms of this species. Winckworth (1932, J. Conch. 19 : 232; 2d., 1933, ibid. 19 : 334) is the only author who has argued in favour of reverting to the name T'ricla Philipsson, 1788, in preference to the later but universally accepted name Scaphander Montfort, 1810. Winckworth’s action in re-instating the name Tricla has, so far as can be ascertained, been followed in only three subsequent papers, namely : (1) Fisher, 1935, J. Conch. 20: 120; (2) Moore, 1937, Proc. Liverpool biol. Soc. 50: 186; (3) Brouwer, 1945, Basteria9: 64. The large animals with which we are here concerned are extremely well known to zoologists, and the name Scaphander is known widely outside the narrow circle of specialists engaged in the study of the tectibranchs, The 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature abandonment of the name Scaphander which has been universally used for these animals for about 150 years (except in the few papers referred to above) would lead to quite unnecessary confusion and would be quite unwarranted. It is for this reason that I now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the undermentioned names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (a) the generic name T'ricla Philipsson, 1788 ; (b) the generic name Gioénia Bruguiére, 1789 ; (c) the specific trivial name gioéni Philipsson, 1788 (as published in the binominal combination Tricla gioént) ; (d) the specific trivial name sicula Bruguiére, 1792 (as published in the binominal combination Gioénia sicula) ; (2) to place the generic name Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (type species, by monotypy: Bulla lignaria Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official Last of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the trivial name lignaria Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Bulla lignaria) in the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic names specified in (1)(a) and (b) above, as proposed to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the trivial names specified in (1)(c) and (d) above, as proposed to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. ws a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘“ MONOCULUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758 By H. MUNRO FOX, F.R.S. (Bedford College, London University) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)377) The Linnean genus Monoculus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 634) has now vanished from zoological literature. Each of its nine species has been put into a different newer genus. The genera are the following (using the enumeration in the Systema Naturae) :— Name of species Genus in which species now placed 1. Monoculus Polyphemus .. .. Limulus Miller, 1785 2. M. foliaceus a aid .. Argulus Miiller, 1785 3. M. Apus .. sie r .. Lepidurus Leach, 1819 4. M. Pulex .. nad 3 .. Daphnia Miller, 1785 5. M. Pediculus 3% Tes .. Polyphemus Miiller, 1776 6. M. quadricornis .. Be .. Cyclops Miller, 1776 7. M.conchaceus.. le .. Cypris Miler, 1776 8. M. lenticularis .. eth .. Limnadia Brongniard, 1820 9. M. Telemus se He .. Cavolina Abildgaard, 1791. For the first seven species of Monoculus, Linnaeus gave references to publications, usually quoting figures, and from these figures and the description in the text we are certain to what animals the names apply. But species Nos. 8 and 9 cannot immediately be recognised from their descriptions and for each of them Linnaeus gave only a reference to one person. These were, for species No. 8, Uddman, a pupil of his, studying in Finland, and, for species No. 9, E. Brander, the Swedish consul at Algiers ; presumably they had sent him the specimens. Species No. 8, Monoculus lenticularis, is difficult to recognise from its short description in 1758 in the Systema Naturae, but this description was improved in 1761 by the addition of the word “ pellucida ” in the Second Edition of the Fauna Svecica(: 499). Hermann (1804) thought that his Daphnia gigas might be Monoculus lenticularis. Brongniard (1820) named the same animal Limnadia hermanni. Lilljeborg (1871) was sure that these animals, since they occur in Sweden, were Monoculus lenticularis, because there is no other flat and pellucid species of this kind in that country. Sahlberg (1875) pointed out that, as it is also found in Finland, it must be the Linnean species. It is now called Limnadia lenticularis (Linnaeus). 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Species No. 9, Monoculus Telemus, is a pteropod mollusc belonging to the genus Cavolina Abildgaard, 1791. Telemus was a soothsayer in Homer’s “Odyssey ’. The species is today called Cavolina tridentata (Forskal). Davila (1767, vol. 1, plate 20 figs. D and E) figured the shell. Forskal (1775, Deser. Anim.: 124) described it as Anomia tridentata. Abildgaard (1791) named it Cavolina natans, because Cavolini of Naples had told him how this animal swims ; he referred to Davila. Hermann (1804) recognised that the species described by Davila, Forskal and Abildgaard corresponds to Monoculus Telemus Linnaeus. I have been able to confirm this from a handwritten entry by Linnaeus in his copy of the 12th Edition of the Systema Naturae (1767), now in the library of the Linnean Society of London, which refers to the plate and figures of Davila. Philippi (1853) renamed the genus Cavolinia, but there is no justification for this. No advantage of any kind would be served by the re-introduction of the trivial name telemus Linnaeus, 1758, for this species, in place of the well-known trivial name tridentata Forskal, 1775, by which it has been known continuously for nearly 150 years. I accordingly ask the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name telemus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Monoculus telemus) and, having done so, (i) to place that trivial name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (ii) to place the trivial name tridentata Forskal, 1775 (as published in the binominal combination Anomia tridentata) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. While the nine species of Monoculus are now placed in nine other genera, the Linnean genus itself is still nomenclatorially available and every one of the generic names at present used for the nine species is liable to be superceded if one or other of those species were to be selected as the type species of Monoculus Linnaeus. This is highly undesirable, since the generic names in question have come to be very well known to zoologists. One of these names, Limulus Miiller, has indeed already been placed on the Official Last of Generic Names in Zoology. I accordingly apply herewith to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the name Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758, under its plenary powers, on the grounds that reintroduction of this name would clearly lead to greater confusion than uniformity, and, having done so, to place this name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. References Abildgaard, P. E., 1791. ‘“‘ Nyere Efterretning om det Skaldyr fra Middel- havet, som Forskal har beskrevet under Navn af Anomia tridentata.” Skr. naturhist. Selsk., Copenhagen 1: 171. Brongniard, A., 1820. ‘‘ Mémoire sur la Limnadia.”” Mém. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 6: 83. Davila (1767). Catalogue systématique et raisonné des curiosités de la Nature et de l'art qui composent le cabinet de M. Davila, Paris. Forskal, P. (1775). Descriptiones Animalium, Copenhagen. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 Hermann, J. F., (1804). Mémoire apterologique, Strassburg. Leach, W. E. (1819). “ Entomostracés ” in Dictionnaire des Sciences naturelles 14. Lilljeborg, W. (1871). “ Limnadia gigas (J. F. Hermann) forekommande i Sverige.” Ofvers. Vetensk. Akad. Stockh. 28: 823. Miiller, O. F. (1776). Zoologiae danicae Prodromus, Copenhagen. Miiller, O. F. (1785). Entomostraca, seu Insecta Testacea, Leipzig and Copen- hagen. Philippi, R. A. (1853). Handbuch der Conchyliologie und Malacozoologie, Halle. Sahlberg, J. R. (1875). “ Om Finlands hilttills kinda phyllopodet och dter- finnandet af Linnés Monoculus lenticularis.” Faun. Flor. Fenn. N otiser, Helsingfors. 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSAL THAT THE GENERIC NAME “RANTUS” DEJEAN, 1833 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) SHOULD BE EMENDED TO “ RHANTUS ” UNDER ARTICLE 19 AND THAT THE TYPE SPECIES OF THIS GENUS SHOULD BE DETERMINED UNDER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN FOR DEALING WITH GENERA BASED UPON MISIDENTIFIED TYPE SPECIES By J. BALFOUR-BROWNE, M.A. (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)171) I originally submitted the present proposal to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the purpose of securing authority for the retention of the spelling Rhantus for the well-known coleopterous genus con- cerned, notwithstanding the fact that as originally published by Dejean in 1833, this name was spelt ‘“‘ Rantus.” At the time when I submitted this application (April 1940), it was impossible for the Commission to take decisions on new cases, and I realised that considerable delay would be inevitable. Later, a second element entered into this case, when it was realised that under a strict interpretation of the expression “ indication ”’, as given in the Com- mission’s Opinion 1, it would be necessary to review the literature for the purpose of determining the place where this generic name was first published. This particular difficulty disappeared in 1948 as the result of the decision of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, to liberalise the provisions of Proviso (a) to Article 25, and to cancel the relevant portion of the Opinion referred to above (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 78-80). Finally, it was found that, when the generic name Rantus was published at what is now seen to be the first occasion on which this name appeared in the literature, in conditions which satisfy the provisions of Article 25, the genus so named was based upon a misidentified type species. In order that this matter also may be placed on a satisfactory footing, it is necessary to ask the Commission to give a ruling regarding the type species of this genus under the clarified and amended rules for dealing with genera based upon misidentified type species, laid down by the International Congress of Zoology in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 158-159). In the circumstances I have redrafted my application, in order both to take account of the decisions taken by the Paris Congress and to include within its scope, each of the three problems involved. I deal with these separately in turn, in the following paragraphs. (1) Author and date of publication of the name “ Rantus ” The generic name Rantus first appeared in print in 1833 in Dejean’s Cat. Coleopt (ed. 2):54. It was there attributed to Eschscholtz, by whom pre- sumably it had been originally suggested in manuscript. Dejean cited four Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 species as belonging to this genus and for three of them citied what he regarded as synonyms. In all, he cited under this generic name eight trivial names previously validly published for nominal species. He did not give any verbal diagnosis for this genus, nor did he designate or indicate a type species. Nevertheless, under the liberalisation of the definition of the expression * indication ” adopted by the Paris Congress, the name Rantus Dejean, 1833, satisfies the requirements of Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles and accord- ingly possesses rights under the Law of Priority. It is not a homonym of any previously published generic name consisting of the same word, and it is therefore an available name. Further, it is the oldest available generic name for the group of species associated with the species, hitherto recognised as the type species of the genus concerned. (2) Type species of the genus “ Rantus ” Dejean, 1833 The first author to select a type species for the genus Rantus Dejean was Hope, who in 1839 (Col. Mon, 2: 131) selected what he called “ Dytiscus pulverosus Knoch” as the type species of this genus, which however, he attributed to Eschscholtz, by whom (as shown above), this name was originally proposed in manuscript. Knoch never published the name Dytiscus pul- verosus but there is no doubt that the species to which Hope was referring when he made the foregoing type selection was the species which in 1825, Stephens had named Colymbetes pulverosus (Stephens, 1825, Cat: 49 no. 489), for when dealing with the same species in 1828 (Ill. Brit. Ent. Mand. 2: 69), Stephens added the following synonymy for this species: “ Dy. pulverosus Knoch—Co. pulverosus Steph. Catal., p. 49, No. 489.” This species, as I have shown (1939, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11)3:109. is the same as that to which MacLeay in 1825 (Annu. javan. (ed. 1): 135) gave the name Colymbetes suturalis. On the basis of the foregoing identification, the oldest available trivial name for the species selected as the type species of Rantus by Hope in 1838 is suturalis MacLeay, 1825. The generic name Rantus is universally interpreted in the sense indicated by Hope’s type selection, but, before we can accept that as a valid type selection, it is necessary that we should satisfy ourselves that the species selected by Hope was in fact one of Dejean’s originally included species. It is at this point that difficulties begin to arise. The trivial names cited by Dejean under the generic name Rantus are as follows :— 1. notatus Fabr. Synonyms: conspersus Gyll. pulverosus Knoch 2. agilis Fabr. Synonym: — suturalis Harr. [recte sutwrellus Harr. ] 3. adspersus Fabr. Synonym: collaris Gyll. 4. suturalis Dejean (a new name) Synonym: —notatus Gyll. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature It will be seen from the foregoing list that Dejean did include in his genus Rantus, a species having the trivial name pulverosus, attributed by him to Knoch (doubtless for the same reasons as those explained above in connection with Hope’s 1839 type selection) and doubtless denoting the species named Colymbetes pulverosus by Stephens in 1825. This nominal species (as already explained) and also that referred to by Dejean as “ conspersus Gyll.” (= Dytiscus conspersus Gyllenhall, 1808, Ins. suec. 1:482 (nec. Marsham, 1802)), are currently regarded as identical with the species represented by Colymbetes suturalis MacLeay, 1825; but, contrary to the view expressed in Dejean’s Catalogue, the species so named is considered to be quite distinct from the species cited by Dejean as Rantus notatus Fabr. Dejean was doubtless referring to Dytiscus notatus as published by Fabricius in 1781 (Spec. Ins. 1: 296), where, however, Fabricius did not publish this as a new name, the name in question having already been published by Bergstrasser in 1778 (Nomencl. Ins. Hanau 1: 31). It is, however, not now accepted by specialists that the species referred to Dytiscus by Gyllenhal, 1808, under the trivial name notdtus, is the same species as Dytiscus notatus Bergstrasser, 1778 ; on the other hand, it is accepted that the species so referred to by Gyllenhall is the same species as that referred to by Fabricius in 1781, as Dyliscus notatus. It is now considered by specialists that Fabricius misidentified the Dytiscus notatus of Bergstrasser (which is now considered to be the same species as Dytiscus nebulosus Forster, 1771, Nov. Spec. Ins. 1:56) and that Gyllenhal followed Fabricius in this mis- identification. Accordingly, the species possessing the misapphed name Dytiscus notatus Fabricius, 1781 (nec Dytiscus notatus Bergstrasser, 1778), is now referred to as Rantus frontalis (Marsham, 1802) (= Dytiscus frontalis Marsham, 1802), the name frontalis Marsham being the earliest available name for the species (vide Balfour-Browne (J.), 1944, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 11: 354). Since Dejean listed as distinct species (1) notatus Gyllenhal (a preoccupied name which he proposed to replace by the name suturalis Dejean (not suturalis MacLeay, 1825) and (2) notatus Fabricius (with synonyms conspersus Gyllenhall and pulverosus Knoch), it is perfectly clear that he misconceived the Fabrician species and that the species which he identified as notatus Fabricius is not that species but suturalis MacLeay, 1825 (=pul- verosus (Knoch MS.) Stephens, 1828). Two conclusions emerge from the data summarised above: (a) that the species Colymbetes pulverosus (Knoch MS.) Stephens, 1825, selected as the type species of Rantus (Eschscholtz MS.) Dejean by Hope in 1839, is a species which, under the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 177-180), is to be treated as having been originally included in the genus, and therefore that Hope’s selection of this species as the type species of the genus Rantus, being the first such selection to be made, is valid under the Reégles ; (b) that Dejean, in identifying the above species with Dytiscus notatus Fabricius, 1781, com- mitted an error of identification and therefore that, as the above species was later validly selected to be the type species of this genus (by Hope in 1839), Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 the genus Rantus Dejean, 1833, is a genus based upon a misidentified type species. The position of a genus established on a misidentified type species (which already had been the subject of Opinions 65 and 169) was reviewed by the Commission and the Congress in 1948, when it was agreed that, where the Commission was satisfied that such an error had been committed by the original author of a genus, it should use its plenary powers to designate as the type species of the genus concerned, the species intended by the original author of the genus (or, if the identity of that species was doubtful, some other species in harmony with current nomenclatorial usage) but that, where the Com- mission was of the opinion that greater confusion than uniformity would result from using the plenary powers in this way, it should direct that the designation or indication, or, as the case might be, selection as the type species of the genus concerned, of the species cited by the original author of the genus be accepted (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 158-159). When we consider the present case in the light of the foregoing decision, it is immediately apparent that greater confusion than uniformity would result if the Commission were to use its plenary powers to designate as the type species of the genus Rantus Dejean the nominal species “‘ Rantus notatus Fabr.,” with which Dejean synonymised the nominal species Colymbetess pulverosus Stephens, 1825, for such a type designation would run entirely counter to the currently accepted treatment of this genus. It follows therefore that the present case is one which should be dealt with under the second part of the decision summarised above. I accordingly ask the Commission to direct that, notwithstanding the error of identification committed by Dejean at the time (1833) when he published the generic name Rantus, the nominal species Colymbetes pulverosus Stephens, 1828, included by him in this genus and (in 1839) selected by Hope, as the type species of this genus, is to be accepted as such. (3) The question whether the name “ Rantus ” Dejean, 1833, should be emended to “ Rhantus ” under Article 19 The name Rantus was published by Dejean in 1833, without any indication of the origin of the word so selected. Thirteen years later Agassiz (1846, Nomencel. zool. Index univ. :321) pointed out that the correct orthography of the Greek word favtds, when transliterated into the Latin alphabet, was not “rantus ” but “rhantus,’’ and he accordingly emended the spelling of this generic name to Rhantus. This emended spelling has ever since been generally adopted ; in 1935 however, F. Balfour-Browne restored the original spelling (Rantus), arguing that no emendation of a generic name should be accepted “unless made by the original author and within the same volume of the publication in which the original spelling appeared.” The question of the interpretation of Article 19 of the Régles was, I am aware, carefully considered by the Commission and the Congress in Paris in 1948, when certain clarifications were agreed upon and arrangements made for a comprehensive review of the problems involved in the emendation of names to be carried out by the Secretary to the Commission, in consultation with interested 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature specialists, with a view to a thorough-going clarification of Article 19 at the next (Copenhagen, 1953) meeting of the Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 4: 141-144). It is quite clear from the decisions taken in Paris that the grounds on which F. Balfour-Browne (1935) sought to justify the abandon- ment of the long established spelling Rhantus, in favour of the original spelling Rantus, are invalid, because not in accordance with the Regles. In view of the ambiguity of the wording of Article 19 (and, in particular, the absence of guidance as to how to interpret the governing word, “ évident’’), it is possible that for other reasons the emendation of the name Rantus toRhantus is not justified under the provisions of this Article. In any case, there can clearly be no finality in this matter until the Commission has given a definite ruling one way or the other. When I originally raised this question with the Commission (April, 1940) I did so because my correspondent Dr. Hugh B. Leach (Vernon, B.C.), had drawn my attention to the fact that in the then recently published Fourth Supplement to the Leng Catalogue of the Coleoptera of North America North of Mexico, Dr. R. E. Blackwelder (United States National Museum, Wash- . ington, D.C.), had used the accustomed spelling “ Rhantus,’’ notwithstanding the paper published in 1935 referred to above. At the same time, Dr. Leach sent me an extract from a letter which he had received from Dr. Blackwelder, which reads as follows: ‘‘ Rantus and Dytiscus do come under Article 19, in my opinion, but each not as a lapsus calami but as an error of transcription. The reasons given by Balfour-Browne for not accepting the corrections seem to me to have no basis in the Rules, or in our attempts to get a stable nomen- clature. And this in spite of the fact that I do not hesitate to back any change that seems necessary. There is nothing in the Rules that requires that corrections of original spellings must be made by the original author or within a set period of time, but the Appendix to the Rules does indicate tha the proper way to transliterate Rantus from the Greek is Rhantus.” It was because I agreed with Dr. Blackwelder that the emended spelling (Rhantus) ought to be retained in this case, that I then asked the Commission to give a ruling in this sense. I am still of the opinion that nothing but unnecessary confusion and instability would result from the reversion from the spelling Rhantus to the original but defective spelling Rantus, and I accordingly ask the Commission to rule that under Article 19 the emended spelling Rhantus is to be accepted and therefore that this genus should be known as Rhantus (emend. of Rantus) Dejean, 1833. Recommendation submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In the light of the considerations advanced in the present application, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to give a ruling that the genus Rantus Dejean, 1833, is based upon a misidentified type species, since Colymbetes pulverosus Stephens, 1828, which was selected as its type species by Hope in 1839, is not, as erroneously stated by Dejean, the same species as that which he called Rantus notatus Fabr. (i.e., notatus Bergstrasser, 1778) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 that greater confusion than uniformity would result if the species with which Dejean misidentified Colymbetes pulverosus Stephens, 1828, were now to be designated under the plenary powers as the type species of the genus Rantus Dejean; and therefore that the species Colymbetes pulverosus Stephens, 1828, is to be accepted as the type species of this genus ; (2) to declare that under Article 19 the spelling of the generic name published by Dejean in 1833 is to be emended from Rantus to Rhantus ; (3) to place the generic name Rhantus (emend. of Rantus) Dejean, 1833 (type species, by selection by Hope, 1839: Colymbetes pulverosus Stephens, 1828) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the trivial name suturalis MacLeay, 1825 (as published in the binominal combination Colymbetes suturalis) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NAMES “ ACANTHOLYDA ” COSTA, 1894 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) AND “ ACANTHOC- NEMA ” BECKER, 1894 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By R. B. BENSON, M.A. (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) ) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)175) In 1859 A. Costa in O. Costa, Fauna Regno Napoli, Imen. 3, Lididei : 2, described a genus Acanthocnema without any included species. In 1894 in Prosp. Im. Ital. : 232, he emended the name to Acantholyda. There is no possible doubt that Acantholyda was meant to replace Acanthocnema because there is only one group in the family LyDIDAE (now known as PAMPHILIIDAE) in which the key character used, the presence of a pre-apical fore-tibial spine, is present. The name Acantholyda Costa, 1894, has been in general use in the Order Hymenoptera now for about 30 years, and the group to which it is attached contains a number of forestry pests in the Old and New Worlds and occurs frequently in economic literature. The name Acanthocnema Costa, 1859, on the other hand, has been entirely overlooked in the Order Hymenoptera and has never been used since its inception. Furthermore, Becker, 1894, Berlin. ent. Z.39:136, gave the name Acanthocnema to a valid genus of CORDYLURIDAE (Order Diptera) and the name is at present in use in that Order. The strict application of the Regles in this case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, since it would involve the transfer of the well-known name Acanthocnema from the Order Diptera to the Order Hymen- optera. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are accordingly asked to use their plénary powers to suppress the name Acan- thocnema Costa, 1859, and to validate the names Acantholyda Costa, 1894 (Order Hymenoptera) and Acanthocnema Becker, 1894 (Order Diptera). At the same time the International Commission are asked to place the above names, so validated, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The gender of the name Acantholyda Costa is feminine, as also is that of Acan- thocnema Becker. The type species of the first of these genera is Tenthredo erythrocephala Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 558, that species having been so selected by Rohwer in ‘“‘ The Genotypes of the Sawflies and Wood- wasps, or the Super-Family Tenthredinoidea,” published in 1911 (Tech. Ser. U.S. Bur. Ent. 20:73). The type species of Acanthocnema Becker, 1894, is Cordylura mgrimana Zetterstedt, 1846, Dipt. Scand. 5 : 2040, by original designation. The foregoing names are regarded as being the oldest available names for the species concerned and it is accordingly proposed that the trivial name erythrocephala Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Tenthredo erythrocephala) and the trivial name nigrimana Zetterstedt, 1846 (as published in the binominal combination Cordylwra nigrimana) should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Finally, on the suppression of the name Acanthocnema Costa, 1859, that name should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALI- DATE THE GENERIC NAMES “ RHINA” LATREILLE, [1802- 1803], AND “MAGDALIS” GERMAR, 1817, FOR USE RESPECTIVELY IN THE ACCUSTOMED SENSE (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 202) In “An XI” of the French Revolutionary calendar (September 1802- September 1803), Latreille published the generic name Rhina (Hist. Nat. Gen. part. Crust. Ins. 3: 198), (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). Latreille cited two species under this generic name, the second with a query. The species so cited were : “ Curculio barbicornis F.” and “ Curculio cerasi ? F.” Since Latreille did not at that time designate or indicate a type species and his second species is excluded as a possible type species under Rule (e), (y) in Article 30 of the Code, the type species of this genus is barbicornis Fabricius, by monotypy. But the name “ barbicornis F.”’ applied by Latreille to that species, was a lapsus calami for “ barbirostris F.”, as is proven by the following considerations. Fabricius in 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 134) described one species under the name Curculio barbicornis and on the following page (: 135) a second species under the name Curculio barbirostris. Of C. barbicornis he says amongst other things : “Rostrum corpore longius ... Antennae... filiformes, hirtae, articulis undecim cylindricis versus apicem rostri insertae. . .”. But Latreille, when publishing the generic name Rhina, wrote of the species which he then mis- takenly called “ barbicornis F.”: “Trompe de la longueur de la moitié du corps . . . le huitiéme article des antennes formant la massue”’. Under the generic description Latreille wrote: ‘“ Antennes insérées vers le milieu des cétés de la trompe ”. barbicornis F. barbicornis Latreille Rostrum as long as body one half as long as body Antennae » filiform with a club 3 of eleven segments of eight segments inserted towards the apex inserted towards the middle of the beak of the beak The nominal species Curculio barbirostris Fabricius is ordinarily identified with a very large common Neotropical weevil with which the description given by Fabricius agrees in all respects, including such conspicuously characteristic matters as the bearded beak (but this is sexual) and the tridentate anterior femora. The characters given by Latreille for “ barbicornis F.”, although not in all respects those mentioned by Fabricius for C, barbirdstris, agree perfectly 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature with the insect itself, including the statement made in the generic description in regard to the antennae : “ le huitiéme ou neuviéme article paroissant former 4 lui seul une massue tres-allongé, ellipsoide ”. The nominal species Curculio barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, is ordinarily identified with a large and common New Zealand species of BRENTIDAE now placed in the genus Lasiorhynchus Dejean. It seems clearly apparent that Latreille, confused by the two similar Fabrician names appearing on facing pages of the same work, simply wrote “ barbicornis F.” when he meant ‘ barbirostris F.”’ In volume 2 of his Histoire naturelle des Crustacés et des Insectes (1804 : 101) Latreille wrote further of his genus Rhina. In volume 3 he had been giving a synopsis of the genera with brief mention of species. In volume 11 he treated each genus more fully. He now dwelt upon the essential characters of the genus Rhina and there again included two species, which I believe he meant to be the same two; but he rectified his error in regard to the name of the first, which he now called Rhina barbirostris, citing as a synonym Lizus bar- birostris F. (but making no mention of the fact that he himself had previously called it barbicornis). In the meanwhile he had evidently realised that his second species was not cerasi F. and rechristened it Rhina barbicornis. (Authors currently list both barbicornis Latreille and cerasi F. in the same genus but as distinct species.) But the species which Latreille now called Rhina barbicornis was a totally different barbicornis from Curculio barbicornis Fabricius; in the light of current knowledge it is a well-known European species of the genus Magdalis Germar, 1817, which is now also adventive in North America, and a species of some economic importance. Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 431) cited “ Lixus bar- birostris F.” as the type species of Rhina, without mentioning other species. Current usage (e.g., Csiki, Coleopt. Catalogus 149 : 87, published in 1936) employs the name Rhina as though C. barbirostris F. were the type species, although there has been some attempt to make it replace the Magdalis, the type genus of the sub-family MAGDALINAE, which it could only do if the second species (first called by Latreille “ cerasi ? F.”’ and later named by that author barbicornis as a new species) were the type species. The method to be pursued in determining the type species of a nominal genus, which, as in the present case, was based upon a misidentified type species, has twice in the past been the subject of rulings by the Commission (in Opinions 65 and 168 respectively) and in 1948 was further clarified by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, which agreed to the insertion in the Régles of an express provision on this subject. This new provision makes it clear that an author who publishes a name for a genus is “to be assumed to have identified correctly the nominal species referred by him to the genus so named and therefore that, where . . . the original author himself designates or indicates or the same or some other author later selects one of = Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 the originally included nominal species to be the type species of the genus, the designation, indication or, as the case may be, the selection so made, is not to be rejected on the ground that the original author misidentified some other nominal species with that nominal species, but that, where there are grounds for considering that such a species had been misidentified by the original author of the genus, the case is to be submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, which, if satisfied that the species in question had been so misidentified, is, under its plenary powers, to designate as the type species of the genus concerned, either (a) the species intended by the original author when citing the name of the erroneously determined species, or (b), if the identity of that species is doubtful, a species in harmony with current usage ” (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 158-159), except in cases where the Commission considers that greater confusion than uniformity would result from so doing. In the present case I have shown both that the species indicated by Latreille as the type species was a species which, as the result (as I believe) of a lapsus calami, was a misidentified species, and also that the species which Latreille intended to include in the genus Rhina, when he cited the name “ barbicornis F.” was the species Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775. I have further shown that the genus Rhina Latreille is interpreted as though Latreille had in fact cited (. barbirostris Fabricius as an included Species and that great confusion would result if, under a strict interpretation of the Régles, it were necessary now to accept Curculio barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, as the type species of this genus. I accordingly ask the International Commission to apply to this case the procedure agreed upon in Paris, by using their plenary powers to designate Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, as the type species of the genus Rhina Latreille [1802-1803]. Prior to the Paris Congress of 1948, the availability of the name Rhina barbicornis Latreille, 1804 (which, as I have explained, applies to a well-known -Under this decision the new name Rhina barbicornis Latreille, 1804 (which belongs to the species now regarded as referable to the genus Magdalis) is not invalidated by the prior use by Latreille of the same binominal combination Species congeneric. In order, however, to underline the fact that the trivial name barbicornis Latreille, 1804 (as published in the binominal combination Rhina barbicornis) is an available name, it is desirable that this trivial name should now be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Although, as explained, the generic name Rhina Latreille [1802-1803], is in general use, it has in the past been suggested that it was invalid, on the ground that it was a junior homonym of Rhina Scheffer, 1760, and of Rhina Wahlbaum, 1792 (in a reprint of Klein, 1744), both of which are names which have been applied to genera of fish. It was for this reason that Rafinesque in 1815 (Analyse : 165) replaced the name Rhina Latreille by the substitute name Rinostomus. Rafinesque was, however, mistaken in rejecting the name Rhina Latreille, which is not a homonym of any available name of older date and is perfectly valid. Of the two names, by which it was alleged that Latreille’s name Rhina was preoccupied, the first, Rhina Scheffer, 1760, was examined by the late President David Starr Jordan (1917, Genera of Fishes) and rejected as having been published by a non-binominal author, while the second, Rhina Wahlbaum, 1792, is unavailable nomenclatorially under the decision in the Commission’s Opinion 21 that Wahlbaum’s reissue of Klein’s pre-1758 work does not confer availability on the names published therein. In view of the decision taken by the Commission in 1948 that in future Opinions should deal fully with all aspects of the problem under consideration (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 355), coupled with the instruction given to the Commission by the Congress to foster the Official Inst of Generic Names in Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 267-269), I recommend that, at the same time that the generic name Rhina Latreille is placed on the Official Last, there should be added thereto also the name Magdalis Germar, 1817, owing to the connection of that generic name with the present case through the name Rhina barbicornis Latreille, 1804, the name of a species currently referred to Germar’s genus. (It may be noted that, prior to the Paris Congress, this well-known name, Magdalis, would have been considered as having been first established by Samouelle in 1819, with the definitely designated type species Curculio aterromus Fabricius, 1775, since Germar in 1817 published it without any definition or description, but with included nominal species, none of which was designated or indicated as the type species. Under the liberalisation of the expression “ indication ” in proviso (a) to Article 25 then agreed to (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 78-80), the name Magdalis Germar, 1817, acquired availability as of that date.) Type Species of Magdalis Germar, 1817 The name Magdalis was first used by Germar in 1817 (Mag. Ent. 2 : 140). No description was given and no indication except that three nominal species were included: “ Rhynch. Pruni, violaceus, aterrimus”’’. No authors’ names were mentioned and no bibliographical references given. “ Rhynch.” is an~ abbreviation of the Fabrician generic name Rhynchaenus. The following question arises: Since Germar, 1817, in giving the specific names Rhynch. aterrimus, etc., to the species that he included in his new genus Magdalis, failed to cite the authors of those names and gave no bibliographical clue to what species were meant, (a) did he fail to establish Magdalis or (b) can the species named be accepted as those, if any, that at the time of his writing bore or had borne those complete specific names (i.e., generic and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5] specific name) ?* If the answer to (a) were to be “ yes’, then Magdalis was not established by Germar, 1817, nor by Samouelle, 1819, since neither gave the author’s name nor any bibliographical reference to the trivial name or names. In that case the genus was established by Germar in Neue Annalen Wetterawische Gesellsch. fiir die gesammte Naturkunde zu Hanau 4:130. Germar here included :— (1) M. wiolacea Fbr., Linn., Rossi, Pzr., Payk., Laich., DeGeer, Hrbst. (2) M. nassata (descr. follows) ‘‘ Ob sie vielleicht Rhynch. carbonarius Fabr. ist ?” (3) M. duplicata (descr. follows) “ Vielleicht Curculio cerasi L. und vielleicht auch Curculio cerasi Hrbst., Payk. (mas) ”’. (4) M. aterrima Fbr., Hrbst., Oliv. (5) M. cerasi Fbr., Clairv., Hrbst. (fem.). (6) M. Lymexylon Fbr., Panz., Payk., Hrbst. No type species was either designated or indicated. The first type selection known to me was by Schoenherr in 1823 (Isis (Oken) 2: 1136), who there proposed Thamnophilus as a substitute name for Magdalis, designated Rhynch. violaceus auct. as type species and therefore ipso facto made it also the type species of Magdalis. If, on the other hand (as appears inevitable from reasons stated in the preceding footnote), the answer to (b) is “ yes”, then it becomes necessary to ascertain whether any or all of three nominal species bearing the names “ Rhynch.” (i.e., Rhynchaenus) “ Pruni., violaceus and aterrimus” stood in the genus Rhynchaenus in the year 1817 or had earlier been placed in it. We need here only consider aterrimus. In Syst. Eleuth. (2: 486), Fabricius trans- ferred Curculio aterrimus (see 1792, Ent. Syst. 1: 439, No. 189) to Rhynchaenus This was the species which Germar meant by “ Rhynch. aterrimus” in 1817, a fact which he himself corroborated in 1819 by giving a reference to Fabricius as the first authority cited after his ‘‘ Magdalis aterrima”’. 2 If, therefore, citation of “ Rhynch. aterrimus” and others is accepted as adequate to validate the publication of the generic name Magdalis, and it is apparent that it must be, then Samouelle in 1819 validly selected the originally * The answer to this question seems to be explicit in the action taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at Paris in 1948 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:80, concl. 13, par. 1). ‘* A generic name published before Ist January, 1931, shall be available (under Art. 25) . . when the name, on being first published, was accompanied by no verbal definition or description, the only indication given being that provided by the citation under the generic . . . name concerned of the names of one or more previously published nominal species.”’ Since the only requirement is the name of the species, the name of the author is not required and equally no other bibliographic reference, . 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature included species R. aterrimus as its type species.* The identity of Rhynchaenus aterrimus Schenkling in the Coleopterorum Catalogus and other authors attribute Magdalis aterrima to Fabricius. But Fabricius never had any intention of establishing a new species under that name, and no act of his could be construed as doing so. He first mentioned aterrimus as a species of Curculio in 1792 (Ent. Syst. 2: 439, No. 189), but in doing so cited Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus, Syst. naturae and Fauna suecica. In 1801 (Syst. Eleuth, 2: 486, No. 225) he transferred Curculio aterrimus Linneus to his new genus Rhyn- chaenus, citing Curculio aterrimus by name, and giving a reference to his own Ent. syst. as well as both the Linnean references above mentioned. Consequently, only one species has been established, namely, Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus, changed in 1801 to Rhynchaenus aterrimus (Linnaeus) (Fabricius) and in 1817 to Magdalis aterrima (Linnaeus) (Germar). While I am not familiar with the taxonomy of these beetles, and have no basis for a subjective opinion as to what actual species Linnaeus meant by Curculio aterrimus, it is clear that coleopterists are in doubt. This is evident from the fact that Schenkling (Catalogus Coleopterorum 29 (pt. 141) : 12) refers under Magdalis to “ aterrima Fabricius ”’ (as a synonym of armigera Geoff., 1785), but gives no reference to aterrimus Linnaeus, and that Wagner (loc. cit. 28 (pt. 6): 40) cites Curculio aterriomus Linnaeus as a synonym of Apion marchicum Herbst. He does not query the synonymy, but since Curculio aterrymus Linnaeus is the older name, he either was sufficiently in doubt about the identification to be unwilling to use it to replace marchicum, or else he simply disregarded priority in order to avoid overthrowing that name. The general presumption in all such cases is that Fabricius correctly identified Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus when he transferred it to Rhynchaenus, and that therefore Germar really meant Curculio aterrimus in the sense of Linnaeus when he cited Rhynch. aterrimus as one of the three original species of Magdalis. Nevertheless, in view of the strong probability that they actually were misidentifying the Linnean species, it seems appropriate that the Com- mission, acting under their plenary powers, as directed at the Paris Session, should set aside the selection by Samouelle, 1819, of Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus as type species of Magdalis, and all other selections (if any) prior to 1823, *Samouelle, George. The Entomologists’ useful compendium, 1919, p. 204. “In... Germar’s and Zincker Sommer’s Magazin der Entomologie, v. 111 [sic !, should read 11] for 1817, notice is given of the following genera lately established (the species mentioned may be considered the types). “Genus Magdalis Germar. Sp. 1. aterrimus.” (Then followed eight more genera, in one or two instances, two species being mentioned under each), In the two cases where Samouelle named two species, he did not effect a type-selection. In the other cases he certainly did, under even the most rigorous construction. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 and should validate the selection of Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, by Schoenherr in 1823 in Isis von Oken (2: 1136) as type species not only of Thamnophilus, which was there proposed as a substitute for Magdalis Germar, but also ipso facto, as type species of Magdalis. It will be noted that Curculio violaceus Linnaeus is one of the three species originally included in Magdalis, that it was treated as type species of the subgenus Magdalis by Daniel in his revision of the subgenera, 1903, and is included in that subgenus by Schenkling in the Catalogus Coleopterorum, but that “aterrima L.” is placed by Daniel as a synonym of armigera Geoffroy and that Curculio aterrima Fabricius, treated as a synonym of armigera, is placed by Schenkling in another subgenus.* To select Curculio violaceus Linnaeus as type species would therefore be to select “‘ a species in harmony with current usage,” as the Commission is now directed to do (Bull. zool Nomencl. 4: 158— 159). In the light of the considerations set out above, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to stabilize the generic names Rhina Latreille and Magdalis Germar each in its accustomed sense, by using for this purpose their plenary powers to such extent as may be necessary, and, having done so, to place these names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and to take such other consequential action as may be necessary. The pro- posal which I accordingly submit is that the Commission should : (1) use their plenary powers (a) to set aside all selections of type species for Rhina Latreille [1802-1803], and for Magdalis Germar, 1817, made prior to the date of the proposed decision ; (b) to designate Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, to be the type species of Rhina Latreille [1802-1803] ; (c) to designate Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of Magdalis Germar, 1817 : (2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Oficial List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species specified below, together with a note that the gender of the generic names in question is that specified below : (a) Rhina Latreille, [1802-1803] (type species by designation under the plenary powers under (1) (b) above: Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775) (gender of generic name: feminine*) ; *The subgeneric name “ Magdalinus Germar” is incorrectly applied to this subgenus. Magdalinus was proposed by Germar (in Schoenherr, Gen. Spec. Cure. 7 (2), : 135, footnote) as a substitute for the preoccupied Thamnophilus, and therefore has violacea as type species. _ The subgenus in question probably has no valid name. D4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) Magdalis Germar, 1817 (type species by designation under the plenary powers under (1) (c) above: Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758) (gender of generic name: feminine*) ; (3) place the under-mentioned invalid or non-existent generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (a) Rhina Scheefter, 1760 ; (b) Rhina Wahlbaum, 1792 ; (c) Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815 ; (d) Thamnophilus Schoenherr, 18237 ; (e) Magdalinus Germar, 1843¢ ; (4) place the under-mentioned specific trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : (a) barbicornis Latreille, 1804 (as published in the bmominal combination Rhina barbicornis) (a species now currently placed in Magdalis Germar). (b) barbicorms Fabricius, 1775 (as published in the binominal combination Curculio barbicornis) (a species now currently placed in the brentid genus Lasiorhynchus Dejean) ; (c) barbirostris Fabricius, 1775 (as published in the binominal combination Curculio barbirostris) (the type species of Rhina Latreille) ; (d) wolacea Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com- bination Curculio violaceus (the type species of Magdalis Germar). Postscript. Dated 16th October 1950. (1) The present application was originally submitted in November, 1945; it was “advertised” in November, 1947, as a case possibly involving the use by the Commission of its plenary powers. It was not however, brought before the Commission at its session held in Paris in July, 1948, for it was realized that fresh ight had been thrown on some of the issues involved through decisions in regard to the meaning of the Régles then taken by the International Congress of Zoology. * See Annexe. } Thamnophilus was proposed by Schoenherr (1823, Isis von Oken, 2: col. 1136) as a substitute for Magdalis with the specified type species Curc. violacea L. } Magdalinus was proposed by Germar (in Schoenherr, 1843, Gen. Spec. Cure. 7 (2) : 135, footnote) as a substitute name for the pre-occupied Thamnophilus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 I have since re-examined this case in the light of the Paris decisions and have accordingly, revised the application to such extent as I have found to be necessary. The revision includes a request for plenary action involving Magdalis that was not previously suggested. (2) Iam informed by the Secretary to the Commission that no objection to the use of the plenary powers in the manner proposed in the case of the name Rhina, has been lodged, as the result of the “‘ advertisement ” of this case made over two years ago. I am confirmed, therefore, in the belief that the action recommended in regard to Rhina corresponds with the desires of interested specialists. Annexe Genderfof Rhina Pliny (32, 11, 53) used the word rhina in the feminine gender for a kind of shark. The word was taken over from the Greek feminine noun ‘piv7) (a rasp or file, but also applied to a shark with a rough skin). The gender is therefore clearly feminine. ; Gender of Magdalis The gender is feminine, from three considerations : (1) The name magdalis does not occur in that form in either Greek or Latin, except in Greek with the prefix d1ro- The Greek feminme noun paydaAic is a later form of d&tropaydaAic The variant d&tmopaydaAs —idas was also used (see Hust. 1857, 17) as a feminine noun. (2) Greek nouns in -is are universally feminine. (3) Germar in 1919 was the first author to combine trivial names with Magdalis. In doing so he placed them all in the feminine gender. 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE NAMES OF THIRTEEN GENERA IN THE ORDER COLLEMBOLA (CLASS INSECTA) By HERMANN GISIN (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneve) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)207) 1 submit to the International Commission’ on Zoological Nomenclature, the proposal that the under-mentioned thirteen names of genera in the Order Collembola (Class Insecta), should be placed on the Official Inst of Generic Names in Zoology. Each of these names is an available name and has, as its type species, the species specified below, that species having been duly so designated, indicated or selected under the Régles. The names now submitted are among the most important and most generally used in the Order Collem- bola. Each forms the basis, moreover, either of a family or subfamily name. Names proposed to be added to the “ Official List of Generic ' Names in Zoology”’. Actaletes Giard, 1889, Le Naturaliste (2) 11 : 123 (type species, by monotypy : Actaletes neptuni Giard, 1889, Le Naturaliste (2) 11: 123). Bourletiella Banks, 1899, J. N. Y. ent. Soc. 7 : 194 (type species, by original — designation : Sminthurus hortensis Fitch, 1863, 8th Ann. Rep. N, Y. agric. Soc. : 668). Cyphoderus (emend. of Cyphodeirus) Nicolet, 1842, N. D. Allg. schweiz. Ges. 6(3) : 63 (type species, by selection by Bérner, 1903 (S. B. naturf. Fr. Berlin 1903 : 180): Cyphoderus albinus Nicolet, 1842, N. D. Alig. schweiz. Ges. 6(3) : 67). Isotoma Bourlet, 1839, Mém. Soc. R. Sci. Lille 1839(1) : 399 (type species, by selection by Bérner, 1903 (S. B. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berlin 1903 : 171): Isotoma viridis Bourlet, 1839, Mém. Soc. R. Sci. nile 1839(1) : 401). Isotomurus Borner, 1903, S. B. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berlin 1903 : 171 (type species, by original designation : Podura palustris Miiller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 184). Lepidocyrtus Bourlet, 1839, Mém. Soc. R. Sci. Lille 1839(1): 391, 392 (type species by monotypy : Lepidocyrtus curvicollis Bourlet, 1839, Mém. Soc. R. Set. Lille 1839(1) : 392). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 Neelus Folsom, 1896, Psyche 7: 391 (type species, by monotypy: Neelus murinus Folsom, 1896, Psyche 7: 391). Onychiurus Gervais, 1841, Echo Monde savant 8 : 372 (type species, by original designation : Podura ambulans Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 608). Orchesella Templeton, 1835, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1(2) : 92 (type species, by selection by Bérner, 1903 (S. B. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berlin 1903 : 180) : Podura cincta Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 609). Paronella Schétt, 1893, Bih. svensk. VetenskAkad. Handl., Stockholm 19(4) (no. 4): 18 (type species, by monotypy: Paronella fusca Schott, 1893, Bith. svensk. VetenskAkad. Handl., Stockholm 19(4) (No. 4) : 18), Sminthurides Bérner, 1900, Zool. Anz. 23 : 616 (type species, by selection by Borner, 1906 (Mitt. naturh. Mus. Hamburg 23 : 182): Sminthurus aquaticus Bourlet, 1842, Ann. Soc. ent. France 10 : xli). Sminthurus (emend. of Smynthurus) Latreille, 1802, Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3:72 (type species, ‘by selection by Borner. 1906) Mitt. naturh. Mus. Hamburg 23: 183): Podura viridis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 608). Tullbergia Lubbock, 1876, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 18 : 324 (type species, by monotypy : Tullbergia antarctica Lubbock, 1876, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 18 : 324). T have to add, with reference to the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, that in future the gender of generic names added to the Official List is to be specified therein (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 341), that the gender of the words constituting the generic names included in the present application is as follows :— (a) Masculine nouns: Actaletes Giard, 1889; Cyphoderus Nicolet, 1842; Isotomurus Borner, 1903 ; Lepidocyrtus Bourlet, 1839 ; Neelus Folsom, 1896 ; Onychiurus Gervais, 1841; Sminthurides Borner, 1900; Sminthurus Latreille, 1802 ; (b) Feminine nouns : Bourletiella Banks, 1899 ; Isotoma Bourlet, 1839; Orchesella Templeton, 1835: Paronella Schétt, 1893 ; Tullbergia Lubbock, 1876. In conformity with the decision, taken by the foregoing Congress, when establishing the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology (1950, Bull. List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the names in question being the trivial names of the species which are respectively the type species of the thirteen genera, the names of which it is proposed should be placed on the Official List 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of Generic Names in Zoology. In every case the trivial name concerned is both itself an available name and also the name currently accepted by specialists as the oldest such name for the species concerned. Trivial names proposed to be added to the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” albinus Nicolet, 1842 (as published in the binominal combination Cytho- derus albinus). ambulans Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the bmominal combination Podura ambulans). antarctica Lubbock, 1876 (as published in the binominal combination Tullbergia antarctica). aquaticus Bourlet, 1842 (as published in the binominal combination Sminthurus aquaticus). cincta Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Podura cincta). curvicollis Bourlet, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Lepidocyrtus curvicollis). fusca Schétt, 1893 (as published in the binominal combination Paronella fusca). hortensis Fitch, 1863 (as published in the binominal combination Sminthurus hortensis). murinus Folsom, 1896 (as published in the binominal combination Neelus murinus). neptuni Giard, 1889 as published in the binominal combination Actaletes neptunt). palustris Miiller, 1776 (as published in the binominal combination Podura palustris). viridis Bourlet, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Isotoma viridis). viridis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Podura viridis). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALID- ATE THE GENERIC NAME “ CARDINIA” (CLASS LAMELLI- BRANCHIATA) AS FROM AGASSIZ, [1841], FOR USE IN ITS ACCUSTOMED SENSE By L. R. COX, Se.D., F.R.S. (Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)208) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to validate, as from Agassiz [1841], the well-known generic name Cardinia in its accus- tomed sense, i.e., with Unio lasteri Sowerby (J.), 1817 (Min. Conch. 2 : 123) as type species. The earliest described representatives of this genus were mainly referred by J. Sowerby and other authors to the genus Unio Retzius, 1788 (Diss. nova Test. Gen.: 16). In 1833 a shell from the Lower Lias of the neighbourhood of Coburg was described by a Dr. Berger (Neues Jahrb. Min. 1833 : 69) under the name Thalassides coburgensis (gen. et sp. nov.). The description reads as follows: ‘‘Sie gehéren zu den Dimyarien, und haben eine der Linge nach eif6rmige Gestalt. Die dussere Flache scheint glatt, nur etwa mit Zuwachs- Streifen versehen ? An einem Exemplar fand ich an der Stelle des Schlosses ein seichtes Griibchen, wahrend die andern weder Griibchen noch Zahn besitzen. Beiderseits des Schlosses ist ein Seitenzahn. Das randliche Band liegt in einer Vertiefung des Schlossrandes. Die zusammenliegenden Klappen sind nicht klaffend.” No figure was given by Berger. Subsequent authors have recognized that the fossil so named and described was some representative of the genus now known as Cardinia, but its specific identity is doubtful and the trivial name coburgensis has nowhere been adopted. The generic name Cardinia, now universally employed for the genus typified by Umio listeri Sowerby, was first published by Agassiz (I.) in 1838 (Verh. schweiz. naturf. Ges. 23 : 104). No species was cited and the genus was merely defined as including “ ci-devant Unio des terrains secondaires.”” This cannot be regarded as sufficient to constitute an “indication” for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles. Accordingly, the name Cardinia has no status in zoological nomenclature as from Agassiz, 1838. The name Cardinia was next published by F. A. Roemer in 1839 (Verstein. norddeutsch. Oolithengebirges, Nachtr. : 38), where the following passage appears immediately after the description of an unfigured species to which was applied the name Cardita obtecta, attributed to Goldfuss: ‘‘ Agassiz bildet aus dieser Art seine Gattung Cardinia, und nennt jene Cardinia sulcata ; wir haben indessen keine Kennzeichen zu finden vermocht, welche die Trennung der 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Gattung verlangten.” Goldfuss never described a species under the name Cardita obtecta, and this name should therefore be attributed to Roemer. Brauns considered that the species to which Roemer applied this name was identical with Unio listeri Sowerby ; he was, however, notoriously sweeping in his synonymies and his judgment in this matter cannot be accepted in the absence of supporting evidence from other sources. The name Cardinia sulcata referred to by Roemer as having been given by Agassiz was not published by that author until 1843 (Etudes crit. Moll. foss. (3): 227). The species so named by Agassiz was (like Cardita obtecta) regarded by Brauns as identical with Unio listeri Sowerby; Brauns accordingly treated the trivial name sulcata Agassiz as a junior synonym of listeri Sowerby. Although Roemer did not accept the genus Cardinia (erected, as he believed, by Agassiz), it could be argued that his use of the name Cardinia constituted the establishment of a nominal genus Cardinia Roemer with Cardita obtecta Roemer as type species, by monotypy. The genus Cardinia, so established, would be indeter- minate, it being impossible definitely to establish the identity of its type species. The status of the nominal genus Cardinia (Agassiz MS.) of Roemer, 1839, is therefore just as unsatisfactory as that of Thalassides Berger. The next occasion on which the name Cardinia appeared in print was in the German edition by Agassiz of Sowerby’s Mineral Conchology (:58). The exact dates on which the various parts of the German edition were published are not known, but the portion containing page 58 was considered by Sherborn (Index Anim. Pars secunda : exviii) as having been published in 1840. That date is accepted here, though it is possible that the portion in question was not published until 1841. In this work it was suggested that the two Car- boniferous species Unio subconstrictus Sowerby, 1813, and Unio acutus Sowerby, 1813, and the Cornbrash species Unio uniformis Sowerby, 1813, should be referred to this genus, “ welche ich nach einer iasischen [? liasischen] Species desselben Typus aufgestellt habe.’ The distinctive characters of the hinge were described. The work referred to in the above passage (the Etudes crit. Moll. foss. (3)) in which the genus was founded on Liassic species was at that time still in manuscript. Of the three species cited under the name Cardinia in the passage referred to above, the first and second are now referred to the genus Carbonicola McCoy, 1855 (in Sedgwick & McCoy, Synop. Class. brit. palaeozoic Rocks 2: 514), and the third to the genus Plewromya Agassiz [1842- 1844] (German ed. of Sowerby’s Min. Conch. : 439). In consequence, the selection of any of these species as the type species of Cardinia Agassiz [1840], would be most undesirable and would certainly lead to confusion. The name Cardinia was next published in 1841, again by Agassiz, on page 207 of the same translation of the Mineral Conchology. No descriptive remarks were given for the genus, but three species were cited as being referable to it, namely Unio crassissima Sowerby, 1817, Unio listeri Sowerby, 1817, and Unio hybrida Sowerby, 1817. Up to July, 1948, the name Cardinia as published by Agassiz in the foregoing manner would, apart from any other consideration, have been invalid, for, being published without a generic diagnosis and without either a designated or indicated type species, it would have been a name published without an “ indication’ within the meaning of that expression Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 as used in Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles. Under a decision taken by the Thirteenth Intérnational Congress of Zoology at its Paris meeting in July, 1948, the definition of the expression “ indication ” as applied to generic names published prior to Ist January, 1931, has been liberalised (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 78-80) and in consequence a name such as Cardinia Agassiz [1841], now ranks as a name published with an “ indication,” and, if not invalidated in some other way, such a name is now an available name. Unfortunately, however, as we have seen, the name Cardinia Agassiz [1841], is invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of Cardinia Roemer, 1839. We may note, however, that if this difficulty were to be overcome by the suppression by the Commission of the name Cardinia Roemer, 1839, under its plenary powers, Cardinia Agassiz [1841], would become the oldest available generic name objectively available for the genus now universally known as Cardima, provided that Umio listers Sowerby (the second of the species cited by Agassiz) was the type species of this genus; it would still be necessary, however, for the Commission to suppress under its plenary powers all generic names of earlier date that are subjectively identical with Cardinia Agassiz, [1841], as defined above, before the name Cardinia Agassiz could validly be applied to this genus. As regards the type species of the genus Cardinia, it may be noted that in the year following the second publication of this name by Agassiz in the German edition of the Mineral Conchology, an anonymous reviewer, discussing the genus Cardinia wrote (1842, Neues Jahrb. f. Min. 1842 : 497) wrote “ Unio listert Dow. dient am besten als Typus.” This observation was made, however, with reference not to Agassiz’s use of the name Cardinia in the Mineral Con- chology, but to the use of this name by Strickland (H. E.), when discussing Agassiz’s then unpublished Etudes critiques, in the Report of the British Association for the year 1842. Under a ruling given by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 348), such action does not constitute the selection of a type species for the nominal genus Cardinia Agassiz (that genus not having been under con- sideration at the time when the anonymous reviewer of Strickland’s paper made the foregoing selection (even if the passage quoted above could be regarded as a selection under Rule (g), if “ rigidly construed,” as required by the Regles). Quite apart from the foregoing special considerations relating to the action of the anonymous reviewer of 1842, it cannot be supposed that Agassiz’s use of the generic name Cardinia on page 207 of the German edition of the Mineral Conchology (in a sense not, in his eyes, materially different from the mariner in which he had used this name on page 58 of the same work) constitutes the establishment of a new generic name ranking from the later of the two pages cited above. In order to secure such a status for Cardinia, as so used, it would be necessary for the Commission to use its plenary powers ; similarly, those powers would be needed to provide a type species for this genus. From the particulars given above, it will be seen that the difficulties in the present case could be overcome, (1) if the generic names Cardinia Roemer, 1839, and Cardinia Agassiz [1840], were to be suppressed by the Commission under its plenary powers (thereby making the name Cardinia Agassiz [1841], 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature objectively available), (2) if all generic names of older date that have as their type species species which are today subjectively regarded as being referable to the genus Cardinia (as universally understood) were to be suppressed under the same powers, and (3) if Unio listeri Sowerby were to be designated as the type species of Cardinia Agassiz [1841]. In addition to the generic name Thalassides Berger, 1833 (to which reference has already been made), there is another generic name which is subjectively identical with Cardinia Agassiz [1841], and may have priority over that name. This is the name Sinemuria de Christol, 1841 (Bull. Soc. géol. France (1) 12: 92), which was applied by its original author to a species which is now con- sidered to belong to the genus Cardinia. The difficulty which arises in this case is that, whereas it is known that the name Sznemuria de Christol was published in 1841 just before 26th May (the date of the recorded receipt by the Geological Society of London of the part of the Bull. Soc. géol. France in which this name appeared), no evidence has yet been found as to the exact date of publication of page 207 of Agassiz’s German edition of the Mineral Conchology, although it is believed to have been in the same year. Thus, Sinemuria may have been published before the foregoing publication of the name Cardinia. In any case, the latter can at present rank for priority only as from 31st December, 1841 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 223-225). Accordingly, as matters now stand, the name Simemuria de Christol, May, 1841, has priority over Cardinia Agassiz [1841] (ranking as from 31st December of that year). It is essential therefore that, as part of the general settlement of the problem raised by the name Cardinia, the name Sinemuria de Christo] should be suppressed, since otherwise it would take precedence over the name Cardinia. In addition, there are several names which, on the validation of the name Cardinia Agassiz [1841], it would be desirable should be finally disposed of, by being placed on the Officcal Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Three of these names are objective synonyms of Cardinia Agassiz [1841]; one is a nomen nudum ; two are invalid junior homonyms of older names. The six names in question are: (1) Ginorga Gray, 1840 (Syn. Contents Brit. Mus. (ed. 42): 150) (a nomen nudum) ; (2) Ginorga (Gray, nom. nud.) Strickland, 1842 (Rep. Brit. Ass. (Plymouth, 1841) Trans. Sect. : 65) (cited as a synonym of Cardinia); (3) Dihora (“ Gray”) [Anon.], 1842 (Neues Jahrb. Min. 1842 : 496) (cited as a synonym of Cardinia) ; (4) Pachyodon Stutchbury, 1842 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 8: 481) (a homonym of Pachyodon Meyer, 1838, Jahrb. f. Min. 1838 : 414) ; (5) Thalassites Quenstedt, 1843 (Floezgeb. Wuertemb. 1843 : 143) (an emendation of Thalassides Berger, 1833) (a homonym of Thalassites Swainson, 1837, Nat. Hist. Classif. Birds 2: 372); (6) Storthodon (“‘ Brown ’’) Zittel, 1881 (Palaeozool. 2 : 62) (name attributed to Brown without a bibliographical reference and cited as a synonym of Cardinia). After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that, in order to prevent the most serious confusion, accompanied by a far-reaching dis- turbance in the nomenclature of this group, it is essential that the International Commission on Zoological- Nomenclature should use its plenary powers to such extent as is necessary to validate the generic name Cardinia Agassiz [1841] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 (as published on page 207 of the German edition of Sowerby’s Mineral Con- chology) with Unio listeri Sowerby, 1817, as type species. The proposal which I accordingly submit is that the International Commission should :— (1) use its plenary powers :— (a) to suppress the under-mentioned names for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy :— (i) Cardinia Roemer, 1839 ; (ii) Cardinia Agassiz [1840] ; (b) to suppress the under-mentioned generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (i) Thalassides Berger, 1833 ; (ii) Sememurra de Christol, 1841 ; (c) to validate the generic name Cardinia Agassiz [1841] (as published on page 207 of the German edition of Sowerby’s Mineral Conchology), with Unio listeri Sowerby, 1817, as type species ; (d) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the trivial name coburgensis Berger, 1833 (as published in the binominal combination Thalassides coburgensis) ; (2) place the generic name Cardinia Agassiz [1841], as proposed under (1) (c) above to be validated under the plenary powers (type species, by designation under the plenary powers under (1) (c) above: Unio listert Sowerby, 1817) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the under-mentioned rejected or invalid names :— (a) the two names specified in (1) (a) above, proposed to be sup- pressed for all purposes under the plenary powers ; (b) the two names specified in (1) (b) proposed to be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, under the plenary powers ; (c) the name Cardinia Agassiz, 1838 (an invalid name, because not published with an indication) ; (d) the name Ginorga Gray, 1840 (a nomen nudum) ; (e) the under-mentioned objective synonyms of Cardinia Agassiz, 1841 (as proposed under (1) (c) to be validated under the plenary powers) :— (i) Ginorga Strickland, 1842 ; 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (ii) Dzhora [Anon.], 1842 ; (iil) Storthodon Zittel, 1881 ; (f) the under-mentioned invalid homonyms :— (i) Pachyodon Stutchbury, 1842 ; (u) Thalassites Quenstedt, 1843 ; (4) place the specific trivial name listeri Sowerby, 1817 (as published in the binominal combination Unio listert) on the Official Inst of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (5) place the specific trivial name coburgensis Berger, 1833 (as published in the binominal combination Thalassides coburgensis) (as proposed — under (1) (d) above to be suppressed under the plenary powers for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. —————_ Cl Cle net CONTENTS : (continued from front wrapper) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda, Order Tecti- branchiata). By wae: | Lemche eae bal ay Cae leeae Museum, Copenhagen) . é Proposed suppression under the plenary powers of the generic name Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758. a H. Munro nie F.R.S. (Bedford College, London University) . : Proposal that the generic name Rantus Dejean, 1833 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), should be emended to Rhantus under Article 19 and that the type species of this genus should be determined under the procedure laid down for dealing with genera based upon misidentified type species. By F. Balfour-Browne, M.A. (Department af Leroy British Museum (Natural History), London) . Proposed validation under the plenary powers of the names Acantholyda Costa, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenopiera), and Acanthocnema Becker, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By R. B. Benson, M.A. (Department of Ento- _ mology, British Museum (Natural History), London) .. a __ Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic names Rhina Latreille [1802-1803], and Magdalis Germar, 1817, for use respectively in their accustomed sense (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By J. Chester Bradley pena af Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.) 5 Proposed addition to the Official Lisi of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of thirteen genera in the Order Collembola - (Class Insecta). By Hermann Gisin (Museum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Genéve) : we = Se 24 : Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Cardinia (Class Lamellibranchiata) as from Agassiz [1841], for use in its accustomed sense. By L. R. Cox, Sc.D., F.R.S. (Department of Geology: British Museum (Natura History), London) ae Page 40 46 47 56 59 Notice to Subscribers i pe ' The concluding Part (Part 12) of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : (containing the Title Page, indexes, etc., for that volume) is now in the press and ~ will be published shortly. . Form of Applications to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Zoologists proposing to submit applications to the International Commission on ~ Zoological Nomenclature are requested to submit those applications, in duplicate — and typed, double-spaced, on one side of the page only, and with wide margins. Owing to the lack of staff available for copying applications not submitted in the foregoing form, preference for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature will — necessarily be given to applications submitted in the form requested. am Full particulars of the bibliographical and other data required to be included in applications submitted to the International Commission will be found in the “In- structions to Authors ” given on page 88 of Volume 1 of the present journal. — 7 Publications of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a The publications issued by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature — on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are on sale at the Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. All communications on this subject should be addressed to the Publications Officer. i Printed in Great Britain by Metcuim anp Son, Ltp., Westminster, London . \ ; VOLUME 2. Part 3 20th April, 1951 pp. 65-96. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON _-pssSZO0LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE“ ; aA>* Pi 2, Se y, Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CONTENTS : we Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications Dor in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. 65 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Bey Pegs in certain cases ats : es 66 eter on back Baan LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and : _ Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1951 ’ Price Ten shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in crder of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re- election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (1st January 1944) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (Ist January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cahrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Peirre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (6th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Honorary Secretary and Managing Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust Secretariat of the Commission : 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1 Offices of the Trust : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 Sea aa ‘ = > : . { y ey 2 _—= 4 £ ” ej 7 - £ 4 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 2, Part 3 (pp. 65-95) 20th April, 1951 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 5 : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Norice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publica- tion in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (vol. 2, Part 3) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so, in writing, to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and in any case in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases Novick is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in applica- tions published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Volume 2, Part 3) in relation to the following names :— (1). the trivial name szrtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Coluber sirtalis) (Class Reptilia, Order Ophidia) (Z.N.(8.) 433) ; (2) Crangon Weber, 1795, Crangon Fabricius, 1798, Alpheus Weber, 1795, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Deca- poda) (Z.N.(8.)231) ; (3) Seyllarides Gill, 1898 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Z.N.(8.)473) ; (4) Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda) (Z.N.(S.)474) ; (5) Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda) (Z.N.(S.)475) ; (6) all names for “ Petrificata’’ in Volume 3 of Linnaeus, 1768, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) and in corresponding portions of the following later editions of the above work :— (a) Gmelin (J. F.), 1793, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13), vol. 3 ; (b) Houttuyn (M.), 1785, Natuurlyke Historie, vol. 3 ; (c) Turton (W.), 1806, Gen. Syst. Nature, vol. 7 (Z.N.(S.)418) ; (7) Conchidium Oehlert, 1887, and Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813 (Class Brachiopoda) (Z.N.(S.)286). 2. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:56), corresponding Notices have been sent to the journals ‘‘ Nature” and “ Science.” FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 10th April, 1951. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 PROPOSED DETERMINATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE SPECIES TO WHICH THE TRIVIAL NAME “SIRTALIS” LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “COLUBER SIRTALIS”) (CLASS REPTILIA) IS TO BE APPLIED By KARL P. SCHMIDT (Chief Curator of Zoology, Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) and ROGER CONANT (Curator, Philadelphia Zoological Garden, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)433) Changes of currently used trivial names of North American snakes are proposed by L. M. Klauber, 1948 (Copeia 1948 (No. 1): 1-14). The changes in question are all valid under the International Rules, and the changes are based on an exhaustive examination of both the nomenclatorial and zoological questions at issue. One of the names in question involves two of the most abundant snakes in the North American fauna, which have appeared under their currect check- list names (e.g., Stejneger, L., and Thomas Barbour, A check-list of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: 171-172) for more than 100 years and have accumulated very large numbers of references. The double transfer of the great list of references would work an especial hardship on the non-tax- onomic zoologist, and would require an explanatory phrase accompanying use of the names in the sense proposed by Klauber. We accordingly ask the Commission to use their plenary powers to direct that the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Coluber sirtalis) shall apply to the species described and figured as Tropdonotus sirtalis by J. E. Holbrook in 1842 in North American Her- petology ; or, a description of the reptiles inhabiting the United States. Phila- delphia, Dobson: 5 vols., illus. (Vol. 4: 41, pl. 11), and that “ Canada ” (restricted to the vicinity of Quebec, see Robert F. Inger, 1946, Copeza, 1946 : 254) is to be treated as the type locality of the species, the nomenclature of _ which is so stabilised. We further request that the above name, so stabilised, be added to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, together with the trivial name saurita Linnaeus, 1766 (as published in the binominal combination Coluber saurita), the names of these two species being thus placed beyond the range of further dispute. It is to be noted that the currently recognised generic combinations Thamnophis sirtalis and Thamnophis sauritus have been in use since 1892 and 1893 respectively (cf. Stejneger (L.) and Barbour (T.), 1917. A check-list of North American Amphibians and Reptiles (1st ed.) : 103). 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The use of the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus for the common garter snake has been unquestioned for more than 100 years. Of the American herpetologists canvassed on the subject of the present application, the majority give it their support. The specialists in favor of the above request are :— 8. C. Bishop, University of Rochester. C. M. Bogert, The American Museum of Natural History. Fred R. Cagle, Tulane University. A. F. Carr, University of Florida. Doris M. Cochran, United States National Museum. D. Dwight Davis, Chicago Natural History Museum. E. R. Dunn, Haverford College. J. A. Fowler, George Washington University. ; Helen T. Gaige, 1211, Ferdon Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Howard K. Gloyd, Chicago Academy of Sciences. Coleman J. Goin, University of Florida. Chapman Grant, 2970, 6th Avenue, San Diego, California. A. B. Grobman, University of Florida. Norman Hartweg, Museum of Zoology of Michigan University. R. F. Inger, Chicago Natural History Museum. Murray L. Johnson, 1207, Medical Arts Building, Tacoma 2, Washington. Arthur Loveridge, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard. M. Graham Netting, Carnegie Museum. J. A. Oliver, University of Florida. Grace Orton, Carnegie Museum. C. H. Pope, Chicago Natural History Museum. Benjamin Shreve, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard. J. R. Slater, College of Puget Sound. W. H. Stickel, Fish and Wildlife Service. R. C. Stebbins, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California. These in favor of the change sensu Klauber :— L. M. Klauber, 233, West Juniper Street, San Diego, California. C. D. Perkins, Zoological Society of San Diego. H. M. Smith, University of Illinois. Not voting :— G. 8. Myers, Stanford University. KE. H. Taylor, University of Kansas. ae “cae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALID- ATE THE GENERIC NAME “ CRANGON ” FABRICIUS, 1798, FOR THE COMMON SHRIMP AND THE GENERIC NAME “ ALPHEUS” FABRICIUS, 1798, FOR THE SNAPPING SHRIMPS (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Ryksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)231) The present application relates to two generic names in the Crustacea Decapoda, each of which is commonly used by the majority of carcinologists, but each of which, under a strict application of the Régles, is inapplicable in the sense in which it is employed. For each of these names (Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798) is an invalid junior homonym of an identical generic name published in a different sense by Weber in 1795. The strict application of the Régles to these names would involve the transfer of the generic name Crangon (as from Weber, 1795) from the Common Shrimp to a genus of Snapping Shrimps. The ruthless application of the Régles in this way would lead to enormous confusion, not only in systematic literature but also in economic fisheries literature. It would also cause the most serious confusion in the teaching of zoology. The following are the original references to the generic names dealt with in the present application :— Alpheus Weber, 1795, Nomenel. ent. : 91. Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 380, 404 (type species, by subsequent selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 422): Alpheus avarus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 404). Crangon Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. : 94 (type species, by monotypy : Astacus malabaricus Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 415). Crangon Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 387, 409 (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 632). Crago Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertebr. : 159 (type species, by mono- typy : Cancer crangon, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 632). Prior to the year 1904, Weber’s generic names had been ignored and the Common Shrimp had been placed in the genus Crangon Fabricius, 1798, while the generic name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, had been used for Snapping Shrimps. In the year 1904, however, Rathbun revived the names in Weber’s Nomenclator entomologicus of 1795 and accordingly pointed out (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 17 : 170) that under the Law of Priority the name Alpheus was not available for the Snapping Shrimps, the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, having, as its 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature type species, a species (Alpheus avarus Fabricius, 1798) that was congeneric with the species (Astacus malabaricus Fabricius, 1775) which was the type species of the earlier generic name Crangon Weber, 1795. Under the Reégles, Rathbun was entirely correct in the contention which she so advanced. The generic name Crangon Weber, 1795, though published without any description, contained four nominal species of which one (Astacus malabaricus Fabricius) was the name of a previously published nominal species; the generic name Crangon Weber, 1795, thus satisfies the requirements of Proviso (a) to Article 25, even under the narrow definition laid down in the Commission’s Opinion 1, for, being a monotypical genus, it had an indicated type species. Rathbun further argued that the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, was invalid as a junior homonym of the generic name Alpheus Weber, 1795, a genus established without a description or definition, with no designated or indicated type species and with more than one previously published nominal species referred to it. At that time generic names published in this manner were commonly treated as satisfying the requirements of Proviso (a) to Article 25 (notwithstanding the explicit provisions in Opinion 1). It was not until 1948 that all doubt on this subject was removed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, when it inserted words in the Régles to secure “* that a generic or sub generic name published before Ist January, 1931, shall be available under Article 25 as from the date of its original publication not only when (as at present) it was then accompanied by a definition or description or when the genus was monotypical or when a type species was designated or indicated by the original author when publishing the name but also when the name, on being first published, was accompanied by no verbal definition or description, the only indication given being that provided by the citation under the generic or subgeneric name concerned of the names of one or more previously published nominal species (‘‘ Official Record of Proceedings of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July, 1948”, in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 78-80). Thus, under the Paris amendment of Article 25 Rathbun’s rejection of the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, as a junior homonym of the name Alpheus Weber, 1795, is retrospectively rendered quite correct. Rathbun pointed out also that the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, was a junior homonym of the name Crangon Weber, 1795 (which, as explained above, she applied to the Snapping Shrimps) and therefore that for this reason also the Common Shrimp could no longer be known by the name Crangon. She accordingly adopted for the Common Shrimp the name Crago Lamarck, 1801, the next oldest published generic name for that species. Rathbun thus used the generic name Crangon Weber, 1795, for the genus of Snapping Shrimps hitherto called by the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, and the name Crago Lamarck, 1801, for the Common Shrimp hitherto called by the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798. Prior to the publication of her paper, all authors used the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp and the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, for the genus of Snapping Shrimps ; since the publication of her paper, the majority of workers have continued to use these names in this way, Rathbun being followed almost: exclusively by American authors only. Thus, in the literature which I have myself OE ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 examined, more than 340 authors (of whom 170 published their papers after 1904) have used the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp, while only about 40 have used the name Crago Lamarck, 1801, for that species. The name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, has, to my knowledge, been used for the Snapping Shrimp by more than 220 authors (of whom 110 published their papers after 1904), while only about 50 authors have used the name Crangon Weber, 1795, in this sense. The genus Crangon Fabricius (= Crago Lamarck) is the commonest genus of shrimps on the coasts of the northern parts of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and is of great economic importance ; the genus Alpheus Fabricius (=Crangon Weber) is the largest genus of Snapping Shrimps, containing over 180 species, and is widely distributed throughout the tropical and sub-tropical regions of the globe. It is therefore of the highest importance to put an end to the present state of confusion and to secure that for the future there shall be uniformity in the names applied to these genera. Further, both Crangon Fabricius and Alpheus Fabricius are the type genera of families ; these families are known by European workers as CRANGONIDAE and ALPHEIDAE respectively, but by American authors as CRAGONIDAE and CRANGONIDAE ; this difference in the names used for these well-known families is extremely confusing, more especially as it involves the transfer of the name CRANGONIDAE from one family to another and the use for the two families of names CRANGONIDAE and CRAGONIDAE which, being derived from the same word, are undesirably similar to one another. The transfer, as between these two families, of the name CRANGONIDAE would give rise to a further confusion through the fact that the family known by this name by European workers contains a number of genera, the names of which are based upon the word Crangon, e.g., Notocrangon Coutiére, 1900; Sclerocrangon Sars, 1882; Prionocrangon Wood-Mason, 1891; Paracrangon Dana, 1852. The existence of these names would be extremely anomalous if the generic name Crangon were to be removed to a different family and would be a permanent cause of confusion and misunder- standing. Similarly, the family known as ALPHEIDAE by European workers contains genera, the names of which are based on the word Alpheus, e.g., Synalpheus Bate, 1888 ; Alpheopsis Coutiére, 1897 ; Alpheinus Borradaile, 1899. The existence of genera with such names in a family called cRANGONIDAE would be further source of confusion. Accordingly, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to use their plenary powers to prevent the permanent confusion that is otherwise unavoidable. The concrete proposals which I therefore submit for consideration are that the Commission should :— (1) use their plenary powers :— (a) to suppress the under-mentioned generic names :— (i) Alpheus Weber, 1795 : (ui) Crangon Weber, 1795 ; (b) to validate the under-mentioned generic names :— (i) Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 : (ii) Crangon Fabricius, 1798 ; 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Last of Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species severally specified below :— (a) Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (type species, by subsequent selection by Latreille (1810): Alpheus avarus Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) Crangon Fabricius, 1798 (type species, by absolute ‘tautonymy : Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758) ; (3) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Alpheus Weber, 1795, as suppressed under (1) (a) (i) above ; (b) Crangon Weber, 1795, as suppressed under (1) (a) (il) above ; (c) Crago Lamarck, 1801 (an objective synonym of Crangon Fab- ricius, 1798, as validated under (1) (b) (ii) above ; (4) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :-— (a) avarus Fabricius, 1798 (as published in the binominal combination Alpheus avarus) ; (b) crangon Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer crangon). I should add, with reference to the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, that in future the gender of every generic name added to the Official List is to be specified therein (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 341), that the gender of the generic name Alpheus is masculine and that of the generic name Crangon is feminine. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 ON THE CONFUSION WHICH WOULD ARISE FROM THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GENERIC NAMES “ CRANGON” WEBER, 1795, AND “ ALPHEUS” WEBER, 1795 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) By POUL HEEGAARD (University of Copenhagen, Denmark) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)231) The urgent need for securing a definite ruling on the manner in which the generic names Crangon and Alpheus should be used and thus putting an end to the confusion which has arisen through the use by some authors of these names in the manner adopted by Weber in 1795 instead of in the manner adopted by Fabricius in 1798, which had hitherto been accepted by all authors, led me in March, 1949, to submit an application to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature asking (1) that the plenary powers should be used to suppress the above names as published by Weber, and (2) to validate the use of those names in the accustomed Fabrician sense. I am informed, however, by the Secretary to the Commission that an application in a similar sense was submitted to the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis of the Rijks- museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leyden, in November, 1946. The Secretary to the Commission has communicated to me the text of Dr. Holthuis’ appli- cation, with which I find myself in complete agreement. In these circumstances I do not think it necessary to proceed with my application. It will be sufficient if I express my strong hope that the Commission will, as proposed, solve this problem by validating the names Crangon Fabricius and Alpheus Fabricius with the type species severally specified in Dr. Holthuis’ application. 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON DR. POUL HEEGAARD’S PROPOSAL THAT THE NAMES “‘ CRANGON ” FABRICIUS, 1798, AND “ ALPHEUS ” FABRICIUS, 1798 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECA- PODA) SHOULD BE VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS By the late ROBERT GURNEY (Oxford) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)231) I understand that Dr. P. Heegaard has made application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to ‘restore the names Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, to their original meaning by over- riding the earlier use of the first of these names by Weber in 1795 which were declared to be available under the Commission’s Opinion 17. I should like to support Dr. Heegaard’s application. Weber’s Nomenclator entomologicus is a compilation of nomina nuda which has not, and presumably never had, any scientific value. So far as the Crustacea are concerned, the only claim to validity that any of the specific names have is derived from their reference to Fabricius’ Entomologia systematica. The generic names, on the other hand, are borrowed from Fabricius’ Supplementum, which was not published until 1798, but these names are applied by Weber in a sense entirely different from Fabricius’ intention. Opinion 17 places us in the ridiculous position of accepting specific names when they refer to the Entomologia systematica, but rejecting those taken from the Supplementum because this had not then been published; while generic names taken from the Supplementum, and misplaced, are accepted as available because they were published before it! The minority view expressed by Hoyle at the time when Opinion 17 was rendered gives the commonsense view. The consequences of Opinion 17 have been disastrous. The name Crangon, unless accompanied by some explanation, has ceased to be intelligible to anyone not a specialist in Crustacean systematics. Any student of geographical distribution, for instance, might be seriously misled by species of Crangon appearing in faunistic lists. ON DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS’ PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAMES “ CRANGON ” WEBER, 1795, AND * CRANGON ” FABRICIUS, 1798 By ALBERT H. BANNER (University of Hawaui, Honolulu 14, Territory of Hawai) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)231) (Extract from a letter dated 24th October, 1950) I have been apprised by Dr. Fenner A. Chace, of the U.S. National Museum, ia ttt ig he ae . as Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 of the proposal of Dr. L. B. Holthuis that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature use its plenary powers to suppress the names Crangon Weber and Crago Lamarck for Alpheus and Crangon of Fabricius. As I have devoted some time to the taxonomy of the Hawaiian members of the cRAN- GONIDAE (or ALPHEIDAE) and as [ have reviewed the literature on this change in names, I should like to submit my views. I believe that it was most unfortunate that this most confusing change in names was made. However, on the basis of Opinion 17 of the Commission, any carcinologist abiding by the rules of nomenclature had two alternatives : to accept the ruling or to appeal for a suspension of the rules. In the forty years since the decision there has been no official appeal in proper form until now, and many later taxonomists have used the names of Weber in good faith, abiding by the rules of nomenclature and the rulings of the Commission. I believe that a suspension of the rules at this late date would not only confuse the literature further, but would also in effect penalise those who followed the rulings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature. I suggest, therefore, that the proposal of Dr. Holthuis be rejected. ON DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS’ PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAMES “ CRANGON” WEBER, 1795, AND “ CRANGON ” FABRICIUS, 1798 By FENNER A. CHACE, Jr. (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)231) (Extracts from letters dated 15th September and 20th October, 1950) A, Extract from a letter dated 15th September, 1950. Thank you very much for your letter of 29th August, 1950, and the enclosed copy of your letter to Dr. Holthuis regarding the Crangon-Alpheus-Crago matter. It is good to know that some action can be expected on this question before long. I do not have time just now to review the literature as carefully as 1 would like to do before submitting a comprehensive statement of my views. I assume that such a statement is not needed or even wanted until after the publication of Dr. Holthuis’s application. As I have written Dr. Holthuis, however, it is my feeling that suspension of the rules regarding this question at this late date will not entirely clarify the situation. All of the American carcinologists have, to my knowledge, accepted Crangon for Alpheus and Crago for Crangon and this change has become firmly established in the American literature. T also know of one Kuropean—and there may be others—who has also made this change. Had the application been made when Miss Rathbun proposed 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the adoption of Weber’s name, I would have been inclined to uphold it, in- asmuch as the names of two very large genera were involved. I have also written Dr. Holthuis that I personally will be willing to accept any measures recommended by the Commission and I feel fairly certain that most American authors would eventually follow suit. However, this would not remove the confusion from synonymies any more than would the eventual adoption of Miss Rathbun’s changes by workers in other parts of the world. I will try to submit a more detailed analysis at a later date. B. Extract from a letter dated 20th October, 1950. Please excuse the delay in replying to your letter Z.N.(S.)231 of 30th September, 1950, regarding the application of Dr. L. B. Holthuis, of the Rijks- museum at Leiden, for a decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature covering Crangon versus Alpheus and Crago versus Crangon. It has taken some time to compile and analyse a bibliography for these genera for the past 45 years, and there is always too little time to devote to such research. I must confess that I owe a very real debt of gratitude to Dr. Holthuis in this connection; without a copy of an unpublished synonymy and _bib- liography of the caridean decapod crustaceans which he prepared a few years ago, this survey would have required a great deal more time and would have been much less complete. As mentioned in my letter of 15th September, 1950, the change from Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, to Crangon Weber, 1795, and from Crangon Fabricius, 1798, to Crago Lamarck, 1801, is now recognised by practically all of the active specialists on decapod Crustacea in this country. It has been accepted by J. C. Armstrong, E. P. Creaser, M. W. Johnson, W. L. Schmitt and myself, and rejected only by L. Boone. The use of Crangon of Weber and Crago of Lamarck by most of the specialists has led to the complete acceptance of the names in all of the ecological and other publications in this country that I have been able to find. Recent biologists, other than taxonomists, who have used the names in this sense include: B. R. Coonfield, H. H. Darby, W. M. Hess, W. G. Hewatt, Johnson and Snock, G. E. MacGinitie, and A. 8. Pearse. In South America, these generic names apparently have not been used in either sense by any decapod specialists who are still active, but Alpheus has been employed by two Brazilian ecologists, L. H. Matthews and L. P. H. de Oliveira. The only active carcinologist in the Hawaiian Islands who has published extensively on decapods, C. H. Edmondson, has used Crangon for the snapping shrimps since 1923. This name is also being accepted by A. H. Banner in a forthcoming report on the snapping shrimps of the eastern Pacific islands. Alpheus has been retained by E. P. Estampador and H. A. Roxas of the Philippine Islands, but neither of these authors can be considered active crustacean taxonomists. ATT? Ys Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77 In Japan, D. Miyadi and Y. Yokoya have retained Alpheus, while Maki and Tsuchikya and T. Urita have accepted Crangon for the snapping shrimps. All of these may be considered professional carcinologists. In Australia, both of the specialists on shrimps, H. M. Hale and F. A. McNeill, made the change to Crangon in 1926 and 1927, and two other authors who have published little taxonomically, B. H. Anderson and J. A. Tubb, have followed their example. The only active Chinese worker to publish on the genera, S. C. Yu, accepted Crangon in 1935. One Indo-Chinese student, R. Serene, has retained Alpheus, but there is no indication that he has published more than a preliminary faunal list. A Siamese author, ©. Suvatti, has employed Crangon, but he also is not a professional carcinologist. In India, Alpheus has been used by Panikkar and Aiyar, but these authors are evidently not primarily taxonomists. One Soviet publication, by Derjugin and Kobjakova, lists Alpheus, but there is no evidence that these workers are still active, In South Africa, K. H. Barnard continues to accept Alpheus in his extensive monograph on the decapods of South Africa published this year. Finally, in Europe, the change from Alpheus to Crangon has been accepted much more slowly than elsewhere. The active carcinologists who continue to employ Alpheus include : H. Blass, I. Gordon, L. B. Holthuis, M. V. Lebour, A. Nobre, O. Pesta, E. Sivertsen, and R. Zariquiey Alvarez. Two active European specialists, J. Hult and T. Monod, have accepted the change to Crangon. Of the European authors who are not primarily specialists in the field at the present time, W. Arndt, P. Audigé, M. Kollmann, T. P. Maccagno, L. Nouvel-Van Rysselberge, F. S. Russell, and P. Volz have used Alpheus and only one, T. A. Stephenson, has accepted Crangon. This survey shows that of the 26 active carcinologists here recognised who have published on this genus of snapping shrimps, exactly half have accepted the change to Crangon and half have retained Alpheus. The shift to Crangon which became significant soon after 1920 and has steadily increased since then, has been retarded primarily by the European workers who have been reticent to change the name of the commercial shrimp of northern Kurope from Crangon to Crago and who have also been averse on purely personal grounds from accepting any of Weber’s generic names, 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature As I wrote in my earlier letter, had Dr. Holthuis’s application been made 25 or 30 years ago when Crangon had not become firmly entrenched in much of the carcinological and ecological literature for the genus of snapping shrimps, I believe that I would have supported it because of its bearing on two of the largest families of caridean crustaceans. Now, however, I cannot see that anything is to be gained by exercise of the plenary powers of the Commission. If Crangon of Weber is placed on the “ Official List,’’ the European shrimps assigned to Crangon of Fabricius by most European workers will have to be shifted to Crago of Lamarck. This change is not as radical as it might be because of the fortunate similarity in names. On the other hand, if Weber’s name is rejected, not only will the name of the commercial shrimps of the Pacific coast of North America have to be changed from Crago (which has become firmly established) back to Crangon, but the use of Crangon for the snapping shrimps, which has been invariably the case in the rather extensive American technological literature dealing with underwater sound and sonar devices during and since World War II, will have to be abandoned in favour of Alpheus. This latter is an important factor for consideration. The contention might be made that a favourable action on Dr. Holthuis’s application would be more generally accepted than an unfavourable one, because of the aversion of European workers to the adoption of Weber’s names but I do not think that this factor is of great significance. I feel sure that Dr. Holthuis, like most of the carcinologists in other countries, will follow any recommendation made by the Commission in this case. There is little question that Dr. Holthuis is the foremost authority on the Caridea in the world today and, as such, his usage will almost surely be followed by nearly all of the other decapod specialists, especially those of his generation which will soon become the predominant group in Europe and elsewhere. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE NAMES “ CRAN- GON” AND “ ALPHEUS” AS FROM FABRICIUS, 1798, BY THE SUPPRESSION OF THE NAMES “ CRANGON ” WEBER, 1795, AND “ ALPHEUS ” WEBER, 1795 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) BY THE INTERNATIONAL COM- MISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE: SUPPLE- MENTARY NOTE By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)231) (Extract from a letter dated 14th December, 1950) The enumeration of workers in carcinology compiled by Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr., gives a clear picture of the present situation. I should like to add only a few remarks, mainly concerning the European authors ; these remarks, however, will not cause many changes to the picture as a whole. Europe. I should like to omit from Dr. Chace’s list the names of A. Nobre and W. Arndt, since both these authors died some time ago. The opinion of Nobre, who wrote a handbook on the Decapods of Portugal, will continue to exercise much influence, especially in his country. Furthermore, I should hike to include among the active European decapod specialists A. Brian, A. Giordani Soika, H. Nouvel and E. Sollaud, all of whom use the names Alpheus Fabricius and Crangon Fabricius. It, of course, is possible to add a considerable number of names to the second group mentioned by Dr. Chace, namely that containing authors who are not primarily specialists in decapod taxonomy. However, it certainly has not been Dr. Chace’s intention to make this list complete either for the American or the European authors. Furthermore here may be mentioned a group of authors, who are still living, but who have not been active in the field of Decapod Crustacea for a long time: W. T. Calman, one of the greatest authorities on Crustacea, H. Coutiére, once the best specialist of the family ALpHErDag, A. Schellenberg, who wrote a monographic treatment of the German Decapods, and B. Parisi, while perhaps O. Pesta also is better placed here. All these authors too use the names Alpheus Fabricius and Crangon Fabricius. Summarising, we may state that when in America the names Crago Lamarck and Crangon Weber are accepted by practically all specialists and non-specialists, in Europe the names Crangon Fabricius and Alpheus Fabricius are equally unanimously accepted. (J. Hult used the name Crangon Weber, when dealing with material from the Galapagos Archipelago ; Th. Monod did so with West African material, and J. A. Stephenson with material from the Great Barrier Reef of Australia.) Soviet Union. J. A. Birstein, one of the foremost Russian authorities on Decapod Crustacea at present, uses the name Crangon Fabricius for the common shrimp. 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature China. 8. C. Yu died some time ago. His work on Chinese Decapods, however, probably will exercise its influence in China for a long period to come, especially so since he gave a revision of the Chinese species of Alpheus, which genus was named Crangon Weber by him. Japan. One of the foremost Japanese specialists of Decapoda Macrura of the present time, I. Kubo, uses the name ALPHEIDAE for the family of Snapping Shrimps. Summarising, I get the following numbers of active Decapod specialists : those using the names Crangon Weber and Crago Lamarck number 13 (I include A. H. Banner, which Dr. Chace clearly did not), those employing the names Crangon Fabricius and Alpheus Fabricius number 15. These figures thus differ quite insignificantly from those given by Dr. Chace. Since it is very difficult to define an “ active carcinologist,” the numbers may be changed in either direction with reasonable arguments for so doing. It is next to impossible to give, for active non-specialists working with the two genera in question, figures similar to those given above for active decapod specialists; for here it is in most cases hardly possible to determine whether a worker is active or not. Still, the opinion of these non-specialists is perhaps more important than that of the specialists, since the former are more numerous and are more in need of a stabilised name than the latter. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO RENDER THE GENERIC NAME “ SCYLLARIDES ” GILL, 1898 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) THE OLDEST AVAIL- ABLE NAME FOR THE SPECIES CURRENTLY REFERRED THERETO By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)473) The present application relates to a generic name, Scyllarides Gill, 1898 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), which is in general use, but which is not the oldest available name for the genus concerned. The ruthless application of the Regles in the present case would give rise to much quite unnecessary confusion, and I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to prevent this confusion by using their plenary powers in such a way as to permit the continued use of the above generic name. The following are the original references to the generic names dealt with in the present application :— Scyllarides Gill, 1898, Science (n.s.) 7 : 98 (type species, by original designation : Scyllarus aequinoctialis Lund, 1793, Skr. naturh. Selsk. Kbh. (2) 2: 21). Seyllaridia Bell, 1857, Monogr. foss. malacostr. Crust. Great Brit. 1:35 (type species, by monotypy: Scyllaridia koenigi Bell, 1857, Monogr. foss. malacostr. Crust. Great Brit. 1 : 35). Pseudibacus Guérin-Ménéville, 1855, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 7 : 137 (type species, by monotypy: Pseudibacus veranyi Guérin-Ménéville, 1855, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 7 : 137). The name Scyllarides Gill, 1898, is the generally accepted name for a well- known genus of large Decapoda Macrura Reptantia. Strictly, however, this name, though available nomenclatorially, is not, under current taxonomic ideas, available for the genus to which it is at present applied, for twice before the publication of Gill’s paper, other authors published different names for genera, having, as their respective type species, species now regarded as congeneric with Scyllarus aequinoctialis Lund, the type species of Scyllarides Gill, 1898. First, Guérin-Ménéville in 1855 described a new Crustacean from the Mediterranean under the name Pseudibacus varanyt. Later, it was found that this Crustacean was the natant stage of the species at present best known as Scyllarides latus (Latreille, 1803) (=Sceyllurus latus Latreille, 1803, Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 6 : 182), a common inhabitant of the Mediterranean and West African coasts. The generic name Pseudibacus Guérin-Ménéville, 1855, is the oldest available generic name for any of the species at present recognised as belonging to the genus Scyllarides Gill, 1898, and accordingly the latter name should be replaced by the name Pseudibacus Guérin-Ménéville. Second, Bell in 1857 described a new genus of fossil Crustacea, for which 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature he published the generic name Scyllaridia. The type species of this genus is Scyllaridia koenigi Bell, 1857. This species was considered by Woods (1925, Mon. palaeontol. Soc. Lond. 1922-1923 : 39) and by Glaessner (1929, in Fossilium Catalogus 9 (41) : 375) to be referrable to the genus at present known by the name Seyllarides Gill, 1898. Thus, on the basis of current taxonomic ideas, the generic name Scyllarides Gill, 1898, is twice over a subjective synonym of an older available generic name, first to Pseudibacus Guérin-Ménéville, 1855, second, to Scyllaridia Bell, 1857. Under the Law of Priority, the correct name for this genus is therefore Pseudibacus Guérin-Ménéville, 1855. But the name Pseudibacus is not at present used as a generic name at all, being employed only to denote an immature stage (the so-called Pseudibacus stage), while the name Scyllaridia has never been used for any but fossil species, while even for these it was dropped by Woods (1925) in favour of the well-known name Scyllarides Gill, 1898. As the name Scyllarides Gill is at present in general use, both for im- mature and adult forms of living species and also for fossil species, no useful purpose would be served—and, indeed, only unnecessary confusion caused— if the well-known name Scyllarides Gill, 1898, were to be replaced by either of the little-known names (Pseudibacus Guérin-Ménéville, 1855, and Scyllaridia Bell, 1857) referred to above. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to prevent confusion from arising in the nomen- clature of this group, by using their plenary powers in such a way as to secure that the generic name Scyllarides Gill, 1898, is the oldest available generic name for the species at present referred to that genus. The concrete proposals which I therefore submit for consideration are that the Commission should :— (1) use their plenary powers to suppress the under-mentioned generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (a) Pseudibacus Guérin-Ménéville, 1855 ; (b) Scyllaridia Bell, 1857 ; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name: Scyllarides Gill, 1898 (type species, by original designation : Scyllarus aequinoctialis Lund, 1793) ; (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the generic names (a) Pseudicacus Guérin-Ménéville, 1855, and (b) Scyllaridia Bell, 1857, suppressed under (1) above ; (4) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name aequinoctialis Lund, 1793 (as published in the binominal combination Scyllarus aequinoctialis). I should add, with reference to the decision by the Thirteenth International Jongress of Zoology, that in future the gender of every generic name added to the Official List is to be specified therein (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 341), that the gender of the generic name Scyllarides is masculine, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO RENDER THE GENERIC NAME “LYSIOSQUILLA ” DANA, 1852 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER STOMATOPODA) THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE SPECIES CURRENTLY REFERRED THERETO By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)474) The present application relates to a generic name, Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda), which is in general use and is extremely well known, but which is not the oldest available generic name for the group of species concerned. The ruthless application of the Reégles in the present case would give rise to enormous confusion, without serving any useful purpose whatever. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use their plenary powers in such a way as to permit the continued use of the above generic name. The following are the original references to the generic names dealt with in the present application :— Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852, U.S. Explor. Exped. 13 : 616 (type species, by selection by Fowler, 1912, Ann. Rep. New Jersey State Mus. 1911 : 539: Lysiosquilla imornata Dana, 1852, U.S. explor. Exped. 13 : 616). Erichthus Latreille, 1817, Cuvier’s Regn. anim. (ed. 1) 3 : 43 (type species, by monotypy : Astacus vitreus Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 417). The name Lysiosquilla is in general use for a genus of Stomatopoda which inhabits the tropical and sub-tropical regions of the globe. Some of the species of this genus are very common, and the name occurs in many places in car- cinological literature. In fact, every carcinologist who acknowledges the distinctness of this genus from the genus Squilla Fabricius, 1793 (Ent. syst. 2 : vii, 511) uses the name Lysiosquilla Dana for the adult forms of the species of this genus. As far back, however, as the year 1817 larvae of species of this genus were placed by Latreille in a genus to which he gave the name Frichthus. As the name Erichthus Latreille, 1817, is much older than the name Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852, it should, under the Law of Priority, be used in place of that generic name by all who subjectively identify these genera with one another. The name Erichthus Latreille was often used by the older authors to denote larval forms, but is to-day used as a term to denote a certain group of larvae rather than as a generic name. This may be seen from the fact that at present the term Lysierichthus is used to denote the larvae of species of the genus 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Lysiosquilla Dana (i.e., the true Ercihthus of Latreille), the term Pseuderichthus to denote the larvae of the genus Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852, and the term Gonerichthus to denote the larvae of species of the genus Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827, while the original name Frichthus has fallen into disuse. The substitution of the name Erichthus Latreille for the name Lysiosquilla Dana would cause such very great confusion that I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take the necessary preventive action under their plenary powers. The concrete proposals which I accordingly submit are that the Commission should :— (1) use their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the generic name Erichthus Latreille, 1817 ; (2) place the generic name Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852 (type species, by selection by Fowler, 1912: Lysiosquilla inornata Dana, 1852) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place the generic name Erichthus Latreille, 1817, as suppressed under (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (4) place the trivial name inornata Dana, 1852 (as published in the binominal combination Lysiosquilla inornata) on the Official Inst of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. The gender of the generic name Lysiosquilla is feminine. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 ON DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS’ PROPOSAL THAT THE PLENARY POWERS SHOULD BE USED TO PRESERVE THE USE OF THE GENERIC NAME “LYSIOSQUILLA” DANA, 1852 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER STOMATOPODA) IN ITS ACCUSTOMED SENSE By the late ROBERT GURNEY (Ozford) (Extract from a letter dated 28th December 1946) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)474) I am entirely in agreement with Dr. Holthuis’ proposal in regard to the generic name Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852. I can hardly believe that any one would be so anti-social as to propose to use the name LHrichthus in place of Lysiosquilla even if such action were justified under the Rules. But in any case such a proposal, if made at the present time, could not, I think, be success- fully maintained, since there is as yet no positive proof that “ Erichthus ” is the larva of any species of the genus Lysiosquilla, still less that it is the larva of any particular species of that genus. There is no reasonable doubt about Lysiosquilla having a larva of that type; but, in order to prove his case, such a mischief-maker would, I take it, have to prove that Hrichthus vitreus (Fabricius) is the larva of a particular species of Lysiosquilla. That at the moment he could not do, but the proof may be forthcoming some day and it is very necessary to avoid any more upheavals in nomenclature. I hope that the Commission will get the name Lysiosquilla permanently established. 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALID- ATE THE GENERIC NAME “ ODONTODACTYLUS ” BIGE- LOW, 1893 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER STOMATOPODA) By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Ryksmuseum van Natuurlyke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)475) The present application relates to a generic name Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893, which is in universal use for a well-known genus of Stomatopoda, but which is technically invalid, being a homonym of an earlier generic name which has hitherto been completely overlooked in the literature. The sub- stitution of a totally unknown name for the well-established name Odonto- dactylus would give rise to great confusion and would serve no useful purpose of any kind. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to prevent the ruthless application of the Law of Priority in this way by using their plenary powers to validate the generic name Odonto- dactylus Bigelow, 1893. The following are the references to the generic names dealt with in the present application :— Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893, Johns Hopkins Univ. Cire. 12: 100 (type species, by subsequent selection by Bigelow, 1931 (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 72: 144): Cancer scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 633). Gamaris [H.8.], 1876, Ceylon, 2: 275 (type species, by monotypy: Cancer scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 63). In the second volume of a work published in 1878 under the title “ Ceylon, a general Description of the Island, historical, physical, statistical, Containing the most recent information, by an Officer, late of the Ceylon Rifles. London. 1876,” the author, whose identity is unknown and who wrote over the initials “ HLS.”, gave, at the end of the twenty-ninth chapter, a list of the species of Crustacea recorded by H. Milne Edwards (1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2) as occurring in the Indian seas. In this list “‘ H.8.” inserted the entry “ Gamaris scyllarus, Rump.” There is no doubt that the species so referred to is the species Cancer scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758. The above species is, however (as shown above), the type species of the well-known genus Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893.) Accordingly, under the Law of Priority, the name Odontodactylus Bigelow is invalid, being an objective junior synonym of the name Gamaris [H.8.], 1876. It would, however, be ridiculous to abandon so well established a name as Odontodactylus in a favour of a name (Gamaris) that has never been in use, is quite unknown and was published by an author who was almost certainly not a carcinologist. I accordingly ask the International Commission to use their plenary powers Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 to prevent the quite unnecessary confusion which follow such a change. The concrete proposals which I therefore submit for consideration are that the Commission should :— (1) use their plenary powers (a) to suppress the generic name Gamuris [H.S.], 1876, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and (b) to validate the generic name Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893 ; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893 (type species, by subsequent selection by Bigelow, 1931: Cancer scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758), as validated in (1) (b) above ; (3) place the generic name Gamaris [H.8.j, 1876, as suppressed under (1) (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer scyllarus). I should add, with reference to the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, that in future the gender of every generic name added to the Official List is to be specified therein (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 341), that the gender of the generic name Odontodactylus is masculine. 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUP- PRESS CERTAIN NAMES PUBLISHED FOR FOSSIL ANI- MALS BY LINNAEUS IN 1768 AND BY OTHER AUTHORS IN LATER EDITIONS OF THE WORKS OF LINNAEUS By the late R. WINCKWORTH (London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)418) ° The twelfth edition of Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae includes a third volume “ Regnum Lapideum,” published in 1768. Part of this (pages 153-174) treats of Petrificata and contains a number of binominal names for fossil animals. If, however, an attempt is made to use these names, confusion at once arises : for the generic names correspond to the classes, not to the genera, of the first volume, e.g., Zoolithus is the fossil genus equivalent to Mammalia, and Hel- mintholithus to Vermes. The trivial names may correspond to species or to groups of species or to genera. Thus, Helmintholithus Hammonites contains four general references and nine further references, «—. which are stated to be “totidem distinctae species”: Helmintholithus Anomites contains references to eleven species of Anomia named in volume 1: Helmintholithus Gryphites is the same as Anomia Gryphus of volume 1. It seems difficult to apply these names of fossils without introducing confusion. Application is hereby made to the Commission to suppress the names introduced in Linnaeus, 1768, Systema Naturae, (ed. 12) 3: 153-174, and also in such other works as are later editions of, or amplifications based on, this volume of the Systema. In particular the suppression should apply to :— Linnaeus, 1768, Systema Naturae, (ed. 12) 3 J. F. Gmelin, 1793, Systema Naturae, (ed. 13) 3 M. Houttuyn, 1785, Natuurlyke Historie, 3 W. Turton, 1806, A general System of Nature, 7. This application has the unanimous support of the Nomenclature Committee of the Malacological Society of London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PREVENT THE CONFUSION WHICH WOULD RESULT, UNDER A STRICT APPLICATION OF THE “REGLES ”, FROM THE SINKING OF THE NAME “ CONCHIDIUM ” AS A SYNONYM OF “ PENTAMERUS ” SOWERBY, 1813 (CLASS BRACHIO- PODA) AND THE TRANSFER OF THE LATTER NAME TO THE GENUS NOW KNOWN AS « CONCHIDIUM ” By F. ELIZABETH 8. ALEXANDER, M.A., Ph.D. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)286) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to prevent the serious confusion, both in systematic zoology and in stratigraphy, which would result from the strict application of the Regles to the generic names Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813, and Con- chidium Oehlert, 1887, I. History of the generic name “ Conchidium” commonly, though erroneously, attributed to Linnaeus The earliest reference to the generic name Conchidium which has so far been traced is in Linnaeus’ Museum Tessinianum (: 90, pl. V, fig. 8) published in 1753, where a species is described (with a locality) and figured under the accidentally binominal name Conchidium biloculare. The species so described and figured is perfectly recognisable and is the species named Anomia bilo- cularis by Hisinger in 1799. Neither the generic name Conchidium nor the trivial name biloculare, as published by Linnaeus in the Mus. Tess., possesses any availability in zoological nomenclature, since that work, being published prior to 1758, was published before the starting point of zoological nomenclature (Article 26). The next occasion on which the generic name Conchidiwm appears is in 1768 in volume 3 of the 12th edition of the Systema Naturae. In that volume a trinominal system of nomenclature is used and accordingly the name Con- chidium acquired no standing in zoological nomenclature in virtue of being so published. (I understand that the late Mr. R. Winckworth submitted an application supported by the Nomenclature Committee of the Malacological Society of London, asking the Commission to remove all doubts regarding the availability of names published in this volume by suppressing it for nomen- clatorial purposes (Commission File Z.N.(S.)418). I feel strongly that this course is desirable since, until this is done, confusion is bound to arise at least so far as the Brachiopods are concerned.) As already mentioned, Hisinger in 1799 gave the name Anomia bilocularis to the species described and figured by Linnaeus in 1753 under the name Conchidium biloculare. In doing so, Hisinger added the note that the species 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature had previously been referred to other genera; his note reads: “ Helminth. Patellaria. Conchidium’’. He did not, however, either accept or adopt the name Conchidium and accordingly, under Opinion 5, he did not bestow any availability under the Reégles on the pre-1758 name Conchidium. (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 150 for the decision taken in Paris in 1948 to incorporate the substance of Opinion 5 in the Regles.) The term ‘“‘ Conchidium ” was next used by Wahlenberg in 1821, where in a general description of Septate Anomites reference is made to the group of the ‘“ Conchidiums”. Wahlenberg used the word “ Conchidium” as a specific trivial name, applying the specific name Anomites conchidium to the species which he was then describing. The fact that the word ‘“ conchidium ” was there printed with a capital initial letter (as “ Conchidium’’) misled Sherborn (1926, Index Anim. (Pars secund) : 1444, line 11) into thinking that Wahlenberg had used this word as a generic name. (The description given by Wahlenberg and the references that he gave make it clear that the species which he was describing was Anomia bilocularis Hisinger, 1799.) The next appearance in the literature of the name Conchidiwm was in 1848 when it was used by Bronn (1 : 322). Like Hisinger (1799), Bronn (1848) did not reinforce this pre-1758 name by acceptance or adoption (as required by Opinion 5) and accordingly he conferred no availability upon this name. At last in 1887 we come upon the first occason when the name Conchidium was published in conditions which satisfy the requirements of Article 25; this was by Oehlert, who (1) gave characters for the genus, (2) designated what he called ‘‘ Conchidium bilocularis Linn.” as the type species of this genus. As already explained, the pre-1758 name Conchidium biloculare possesses no status in zoological nomenclature, but that does not invalidate Oehlert’s selection, as the type species of Conchidium, of the species represented by the foregoing invalid name, that is, Anomia bilocularis Hisinger, 1799. Under the Régles, therefore, Anomia bilocularis Hisinger, 1799, is the type species of the genus Conchidiwm, and has been so accepted by all sub- sequent authors, some of whom, however, have continued to attribute this generic name to Linnaeus instead of to Oehlert. II. History of the generic name “ Pentamerus” Sowerby (J)., 1813 The generic name Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813 (Min. Conch. 1 : 73*-76*) was published without a designated type species ; three nominal species were referred to this genus, of which the first was Pentamerus knighti (incorrectly spelt knightii), a new species, and the third Pentamerus laevis, also a new species. In 1853, Davidson (: 97) selected Pentamerus knighti Sowerby (J.), 1813, to be the type species of the genus Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813. This is a valid selection under Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Reégles, and accordingly this species is the type species of this genus, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 In 1894 ( : 236-240), Hall and Clarke revised the genera Pentamerus and Conchidium and, in doing so, selected Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1839, as the type species of Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813, either being ignorant of, or ignoring, the earlier selection by Davidson (1853) of Pentamerus knighti Sowerby (J.), 1813, as the type species of this genus. The nominal species Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1839, was not (and by reason of the date of the publication of its name, could not have been) one of the nominal species originally included in the genus Pentamerus Sowerby, but it was regarded as such by those authors because, following Davidson (1867), they regarded the names Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1839, and Pentamerus laevis Sowerby (J.), 1813, as names given to the adult and immature forms res- pectively of a single species, and the latter name had been cited by James Sowerby when he first published the name Pentamerus. Although, as shown above, the action by Hall and Clarke was entirely contrary to the present Régles, it has been generally followed by subsequent authors, except that Schuckert and Le Vene (1929) and Schuckert and Cooper (1932) treated the nominal species Pentamerus laevis Sowerby (J.), 1813, and not Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1839, as the type species of the genus Pentamerus. III. The result which would follow from the strict application of the “ Regles ” in the present case We have seen in the preceding Section that under the Reégles (1) the type species of Conchidium Oehlert, 1887, is Anomia bilocularis Hisinger, 1799 (the species currently accepted as such) and that the type species of Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813, is Pentamerus knightt Sowerby (J.), 1813 (a species which has never been accepted as such by any author, other than Davidson in 1853) and not Pentamerus laevis Sowerby (J.), 1813, or Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1839, which are commonly accepted as forms of a single species and one or other of which is universally accepted as the type species of Pen- tamerus. According to currently accepted taxonomic ideas, the species Anomia hnlocularis Hisinger, 1799, and Pentamerus knighti Sowerby (J.), 1813, are congeneric with one another and are both referable to the genus Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813. The acceptance of the application of the Reégles in this way would inevitably lead to the greatest confusion: (1) the well-known generic name Conchidiwum would disappear as a synonym of Pentamerus ; (2) the species now referred to the genus Pentamerus would have to be placed in a genus with a different name; (3) the names of the Order, Superfamily and Family would have to be changed to conform with the change in the generic name; (4) stratigraphical literature would suffer also through the beds known as “ Pentamerus beds ’’ being characterised (as they would have to be) by some genus other than Pentamerus, while the genus which in future would have to be called by the name Pentamerus would be a genus occurring in a different horizon, 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature IV. Action by the International Commission on Zoological Nomencla-~ ture recommended In view of the intolerable confusion both in systematic zoology and in stratigraphical literature to which the strict application of the Regles in the present case would at once give rise, I think it essential to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers in order to give valid force to current practice. Before formulating my proposals for this purpose, I think that consideration should be given to the question whether Pentamerus laevis Sowerby (J.), 1813, or Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1839, should be designated as the type species of the genus Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813. The only advantage of selecting the first of these species as the type species is that it is one of the nominal species actually placed in the genus Pentamerus by Sowerby when he first published that generic name. Against this must be set the consideration that, although it is probable that the name Pentamerus laevis applies to an immature form of the species, the adult form of which was named Pentamerus oblongus by Sowerby (J. de C.) in 1839, there can be no certainty about this identification as James Sowerby’s holotype of laevis cannot be traced and in consequence the name Pentamerus laevis Sowerby (J.) is at present a nomen dubium. If at some future date the holotype of P. laevis were to be found and it was shown that this name was applicable to some species not congeneric with P. oblongus, fresh confusion would arise in the use of the generic name Pentamerus. In these circumstances it appears to me that it would be most unwise to ask the Commission to use its plenary powers for the purpose of designating the doubtfully identifiable P. laevis as the type species of Pen- tamerus and that the only way of eliminating all risk of further confusion would be for the Commission to use its plenary powers to designate P. oblongus as the type species of this genus. Having regard to the decision taken by the International Commission in Paris in 1948 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 355) that Opinions should deal with all questions that arise in connection with any given case submitted, I think it right to draw attention to the following generic names which are involved in the synonymy of the name Pentamerus Sowerby: (1) Gypidia Dalman, 1828, is an uncalled-for substitute for the name Pentamerus Sowerby, of which therefore it is an objective synonym ; (2) the names Trimurus Caldwell, 1934, and Miopentamerus Alexander, 1936, which were both accidentally published in an attempt strictly to apply the Reégles in the present case, are both nomina nuda ; (3) Miopentamerus Woods, 1937, which was published with Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby, 1839, as the sole cited species, which is thus its type species by monotypy, will become an objective synonym of Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813, if, as I recommend below, the Commission under its plenary powers designates P. oblongus as the type species of Pentamerus, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 In the light of the considerations set forth in the present application and, in particular, the need for avoiding the serious confusion which would result from the strict application of the Reégles in the present case, I ask the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to rule :— (a) that neither Hisinger (1799) nor Bronn (1848) reinforced the pre-1758 generic name Conchidium by adoption or acceptance (Opinion 5) and therefore that that name acquired no rights in zoological nomenclature in virtue of having been published by either of those authors ; that the term Conchidium, as published by Wahlenberg in 1821, was not used as a generic name and therefore that the alleged generic name Conchidium Wahlenberg, 1821, is a cheironym ; (b — — a ~— that the generic name Conchidium ranks in zoological nomen- clature from Oehlert (1887), the first author by whom it was published in conditions which satisfy the requirements of Article 25 of the Reégles ; (2) to use its plenary powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813, made prior to the proposed decision ; (b) to designate Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1839, to be the type species of Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813 ; (c) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority the trivial name laevis Sowerby (J.), 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Pentamerus laevis) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Conchidiwm Oehlert, 1887 (type species, by original designation : Anomia bilocularis Hisinger, 1799) (gender of generic name: neuter) ; (b) Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813 (type species, by designation under the plenary powers as proposed in (2) (b) above: Pen- famerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1839) (gender of generic name; masculine). (4) to place the under-mentioned generic names and alleged generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) the under-mentioned generic names proposed, under (1) (a) above, to be declared to possess no status in zoological nomenclature :— (i) Conchidium Hisinger, 1799 ; (ii) Conchidium Bronn, 1848 ; 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) Conchidium Wahlenberg, 1821, proposed under (1) (b) to be declared a cheironym ; (c) Gypidia Dalman, 1828 (an objective synonym of Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813) ; (d) the under-mentioned nomina nuda :— (i) Trimurus Caldwell, 1934 ; (ii) Miopentamerus Alexander (née Caldwell), 1936 ; (e) Miopentamerus Woods, 1937 (type species, by monotypy: Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby, 1839) (an objective synonym of Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813, when, as recommended in (2) (b) above, the foregoing species is designated under the plenary powers as the type species of Pentamerus Sowerby) ; (5) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) bilocularis Hisinger, 1799 (as published in the biominal com- bination Anomia lilocularis) ; (b) knight? Sowerby (J.), 1813 (as published in the binominal com- bination Pentamerus knighti, the trivial name then being in- correctly given as knighti) ; (c) oblongus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Pentamerus oblongus) ; (6) to place the trivial name laevis Sowerby (J.), 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Pentamerus laevis), as proposed under (2) (c) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THE PLENARY POWERS SHOULD BE USED TO CONSERVE THE NAMES “ CON- CHIDIUM” AND “PENTAMERUS” FOR THE FOSSIL BRACHIOPOD GENERA TO WHICH THOSE NAMES ARE CUSTOMARILY APPLIED By J. K. St. JOSEPH, M.A., Ph.D. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)286) (Extract from a letter dated 7th November, 1950) I understand that Mrs. Elizabeth Alexander has submitted to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature an application concerning the names of the fossil brachiopod genera Conchidium auctt. and Pentamerus auctt. Since I have also worked on these genera and have had an opportunity of reading through Mrs. Alexander’s statement in the form in which it has been submitted to the Commission, I write to say that I am entirely in agreement with the principles of the case as she has outlined them, and that I hope that action may be taken to render valid the usage of these generic names in the way they are customarily used at present. 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON DR. F. ELIZABETH ALEXANDER’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOG- ICAL NOMENCLATURE OF ITS PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE CURRENT USAGE OF THE GENERIC NAME “ PENTAMERUS ” SOWERBY, 1813 (CLASS BRACHIOPODA) By THOMAS W. AMSDEN (Department of Geology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)286) (Extract from a letter dated 31st October, 1950) I received your letter of 24th October with the enclosed copy of the appli- cation by Dr. Elizabeth Alexander pertaining to the names Conchidium and Pentamerus. The problem concerned with these generic names is a complicated one and it seems to 0 Dr. Alexander has proposed the best possible solution. & ” MGs 4 a oo Ne re yee a (2 She e apy pee * XQ ne oi? ON DR. F. ELIZABETH ALEXANDER’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOG- ICAL NOMENCLATURE OF ITS PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE CURRENT USAGE OF THE GENERIC NAME “ PENTAMERUS ” SOWERBY, 1813 (CLASS BRACHIOPODA) By G. ARTHUR COOPER (Curator, Invertebrate Paleontology and Paleobotany, Snuthsonian Institution, gy Q U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)286) (Extract from a letter dated 30th November 1950) Dr. Helen Muir-Wood, who is visiting here at the U.S. National Museum, turned over to me your letter concerning Conchidium and Pentamerus. As far as I am personally concerned, I would be agreeable to the Commission using its plenary powers to designate Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby, 1839, as type species of Pentamerus and to suppress the name Pentamerus laevis, which has priority over P. oblongus. CONTENTS : (continued from front wrapper) Proposed determination under the plenary powers of the species Page to which the trivial name sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Coluber sirtalis) (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata) is to be applied. By Karl P. Schmidt (Chief Curator of Zoology, Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) and Roger Conant (Curator, eat Zoological Garden, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, _ Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp and the generic name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, for the Snapping Shrimps (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Riksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ys ata a re oe ss a 69 On the confusion which would arise from the acceptance of the generic names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Alpheus Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By Poul Heegaard (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) .. Li, 73 On Dr. Poul Heegaard’s proposal that the names Crangon : Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) should be validated under the plenary powers. By the late Robert Gurney (Oxford) ‘Ss 74 On Dr. L. B. Holthuis’ proposals relating to the generic names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798. By Albert H. Banner (University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Territory of Hawai?) dhs Se es es wr 7 be 74 On Dr. L. B. Holthuis’ proposals relating to the generic names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798. By Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National _ Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) e ae 2 75 On the proposed validation of the names Crangon and Alpheus as from Fabricius, 1798, by the suppression of the names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Alpheus Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature : Supplementary Note. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) x 43 Sn ee Proposed use of the plenary powers to render the generic name Scyllarides Gill, 1898 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), the oldest available name for the species currently referrea thereto. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) as te as Proposed use of the plenary powers to render the generic name Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Stoma- topoda), the oldest available. name for the species currently referred thereto. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) iy On Dr. L. B. Holthuis’ proposal that the plenary powers should be used to preserve the use of the generic name Lystosquilla _ Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda), in its _ accustomed sense. By the late Robert Gurney (Oxford) .. 85 67 79 81 83 CONTENTS : (continued from overleaf) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Page Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893 (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Riksmuseum van : Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) a oe 86 Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress certain names published for fossil animals by Linnaeus in 1768 and by other authors in later editions of the works of Linnaeus. By the late R. Winckworth (London) . an a 25 88 Proposed use of the plenary powers to steve the confusion which would result, under a strict application of the Regles, from the sinking of the name Conchidium as a synonym of Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Brachipoda), and the transfer of the latter name to the genus now known as = a Conchidium. By F. Elizabeth Alexander, M.A., Ph.D. i. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) a 89 On the proposal that the plenary powers should be used to conserve the names Conchidium and Pentamerus for the fossil Brachiopod genera to which those names are customarily applied. By J. K. St. Joseph, M.A., Ph.D. [Selamaer ; Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) . 95 On Dr. F. Elizabeth Alexander’s proposal for iis use by rhe International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers to validate current usage of the generic name Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Brachiopoda). By Thomas W. Amsden (Department of Geology, The we Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) . 96 On Dr. F. Elizabeth Alexander’s proposal for the use es ik International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers to validate current usage of the generic name Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813 (Class Brachiopoda). By G. Arthur Cooper (Curator, Invertebrate Paleontology and Paleobotany, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, | Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) .. os Ss Me sis 06 . = Publications of the International Commission on Zoclogical Nomenclature All inquiries regarding the publications issued by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological — Nomenclature, should be addressed to the Publications Officer, Offices of the — International Trust fer Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, — S.W.7, England. Printed in Great Britain by Mercuim anv Son, Ltp., Westminster, london VOLUME 2. Part 4 20th April, 1951 pp. 97-128. ‘THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL ; NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of ® INTERNATIONAL Seapoapne ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE a. Ten ‘ ie a Ne > b 4 Edited by “Qomre oe FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CONTENTS : Bs. Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on _ _ Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. > of 97 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its rey powers in certain cases a ay ¥ a Ki a 98 (continued on back eae LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the _ International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1951 Price Ten shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) ‘B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference tc date of election or of most recent re- election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (1st January 1944) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (Ist January 1947) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (1st January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cahrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Peirre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (6th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Persona! Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Honorary Secretary and Managing Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E: Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust Secretariat of the Commission : 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1 Offices of the Trust : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 | BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 2, Part 4 (pp. 97-128) 20th April 1951 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 5 :5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Noricr is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (vol. 2, Part 4) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued). (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases Norice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature (Vol. 2, Part 4) in relation to the followmg names :— (1) Ligia Weber, 1795, Ligia Fabricius, 1798, and Carcinus Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Z.N.(S.)209). (2) Capsus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (Z.N.(S.)211). (3) the names quadratus Fabricius, 1787, and albicans Bosc, [1801-1802], as alternative trivial names for the Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Z.N.(S.)271). (4) Tettigonia and Acrida : proposed validation of, as from Linnaeus, 1758 (application submitted under Opinion 124) (Z.N.(8.)328). 2. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 56), corresponding Notices have been sent to the journals “ Nature’ and “ Science.” FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 10th April 1951. anti Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAMES “LIGIA” FABRICIUS, 1798, (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER ISOPODA) AND “ CARCIN- US” LEACH, 1814 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) By the late ALIDA M. BUITENDIJK ann L. B. HOLTHUIS (Ruyksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)209) The object of the present application is to secure authority from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the continued use of the well-known generic names Ligia Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda) and Carcinus Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) in their accustomed sense. Rathbun pointed out in 1904 (Proce. biol. Soc. Wash. 17: 172), that the generic name Ligia Weber, 1795 (Nomencl. ent. : 92) preoccupies, and therefore renders invalid, the generic name Lagia Fabricius, 1798 (Suppl. Ent. syst.: 296, 301). Weber in his list of names—he gave no descriptions—was the first author to publish the name Jvgia. In using this name, he cited with it the name Cancer, which he placed in brackets (parentheses), to indicate that the species placed by him in the genus Lagia were referred by Fabricius to the genus Cancer Linnaeus. Under the generic name Ligia, Weber cited three specific names, namely Ligia inflexa, Ligia 3-cuspitata and Ligia granaria. The first two of these specific names were at that time nomina nuda, but the trivial name (granaria) comprised in the third of these names had already been published, in the binominal combination Cancer granarius, by Herbst in 1783 (Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und Krebse 1: 107, pl. 2, fig. 28); this name had been referred to also by Fabricius in 1793 (Ent. syst. 2:442). We see therefore that at the time when Weber first published the generic name Jvgia, he cited under that name the trivial name of only one previously described and named species, viz. Cancer granarius Herbst, 1783. That species is therefore the type species of the genus Jigia Weber, 1795, by monotypy. - The nominal species Cancer granarius Herbst, 1783, was based upon the “ langwerpig-vierkante Zee-Krabbe ” of Slabber (1769-1778, Naturkuundige Verlustigingen : 159, pl. 18, Fig. 1), since Herbst’s figure is a copy of that given by Slabber, and his description of this species is an abbreviated trans- lation of Slabber’s Dutch text. It is now known that Slabber’s “ species ”’ (and therefore Herbst’s) is merely the megalopa stage of the common shore erab Carcinus maenas (Linnaeus, 175 (= Cancer maenas Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 627). From the taxonomic standpoint, the genus Ligia Weber, 1795, is identical with the genus Carcinus Leach, 1814, and accordingly the name Carcinus Leach is a subjective junior synonym of, and falls to, the name Jigia Weber. After Weber (1795) the generic name Ligia was. never used for a genus of Brachyura. On the other hand the generic name Carcinus came into general use for the extremely common shore crab (Cancer maenas Linnaeus) from the coasts of the North Atlantic. 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The name Ligia Fabricius, 1798, was published by that author for a genus of Isopods, represented by Oniscus oceanicus Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12)1:1061), which was selected as the type species of this genus by Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 423). It has ever since been generally used by authors in this sense up to the time of the publication of Rathbun’s paper in 1904. Since then, it has been discarded by some American authors in favour of the name Jigyda Rafinesque, 1815 (Analyse Nature: 101). This name is quite unfamiliar to European authors, while at least one American author (W. G. van Name), who for a time used this name later (1936) reverted to the name Ligia Fabricius in his monographie work, “The American Land and Fresh-water Isopod Crustacea” (Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 71). In the light of the considerations advanced above, it is considered most advisable—in view of the enormous confusion which otherwise is inevitable —that the Commission should suppress, under its plenary powers, the generic name Ligia Weber, 1795, and should validate the generic name Ligia Fabricius, 1798, with Oniscus oceanicus Linnaeus, 1767, as its type species (by subsequent selection by Latreille (1810) ) and should place this name, so validated, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The adoption of the foregoing proposal, by elimimating the name Ligia Weber, 1795, will serve the further important purpose of removing one of the two causes which at present invalidate the well-known and still commonly used generic name Carcinus Leach, 1814 (in Brewster’s Edinburgh Ency. 7: 390) (type species, by monotypy : Cancer maenas Linnaeus, 1758). Before however the name Carcinus Leach could become the valid generic name for the common shore crab, it would be necessary for the Commission to use its plenary powers to suppress the earlier name Carcinus Latreille, ‘1796 (Precis Caract. génér. Ins. : 197), which, as pointed out by Rathbun in 1897 (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 11 : 164), at present makes Leach’s generic name Carcinus an invalid junior homonym. On the authority of Stebbing (1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 29 : 1669), we may conclude that the genus Carcinus Latreille, in the original description of which no species was cited by name, is synonymous with Gammarus Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 418), and thus belongs to the Amphipoda. The name Carcinus Latreille has never been used by any subsequent author, and its suppression under the plenary powers would therefore encounter no difficulty whatever. Rathbun’s re-discovery (1897) of the long-neglected name Carcinus Latreille, 1796, and, more particularly, her substitution (1897) of the new generic name Carcinides Rathbun for the generic name Carcinus Leach for the common shore crab, led to a break in the uniformity of the practice of carcinologists in naming the common shore crab ; some authors (e.g., Pesta; Monod) followed Rathbun in discarding the name Carcinus Leach in favour of the name Carcinides Rathbun, 1897 ; while others (e.g., Bouvier, Lebour, Gurney, Balas) continued to use the name Carcinus Leach, notwithstanding the fact that, as rightly pointed out by Rathbun, this name is invalid. That, in spite of this, the name Carcinus Leach has continued to be used by the a i ee ee Se Oe Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 great majority of carcinologists—only a few using the name Carcinides— is striking evidence of the general reluctance to abandon the use of this name. In order to prevent the great confusion which would follow the strict application of the Régles in the present case, and to put an end to such con- fusion as has already arisen through the adoption by a limited number of workers, of the changes recommended by Rathbun, we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers :— (a) to suppress the under-mentioned generic names both for the purposes of the Law of Priority and for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (i) Lngia Weber, 1795 ; (ii) Carcinus Latreille, 1796 ; (b) to validate the under-mentioned generic names :— (i) Lngia Fabricius, 1798 ; (ii) Carcinus Leach, 1814 ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species severally specified below :— = (a) Iigia Fabricius, 1798 (type species, by selection by Latreille, 1810: Oniscus oceanicus Linnaeus, 1767) (gender of generic name : feminine) ; — (b) Carcinus Leach, 1814 (type species, by monotypy: Cancer maenas Linnaeus, 1758) (gender of generic name: masculine) ; =. -— Te - ~ © (3) to place the under-mentioned generic names, proposed in (1) (a) above to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Lvgia Weber, 1795 (suppressed under (1) (a) (i) above) ; (b) Carcinus Latreille, 1796 (suppressed under (1) (a) (i) above) ; (c) Carcinides Rathbun, 1897 (an objective synonym of Carcinus Leach, 1814) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) maenas Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combina- tion Cancer maenas) ; (b) oceanicus Linnaeus, 1767 (as published in the binominal com- bination Oniscus oceanicus). 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON THE GENERIC NAME “ LIGIA” AS USED BY WEBER, 1795, AND BY FABRICIUS IN 1798 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDERS DECAPODA AND ISOPODA RESPECTIVELY) By POUL HEEGAARD (University of Copenhagen, Denmark) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)209) In March, 1949, I submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature an application that it should use its plenary powers in order to prevent the confusion which would be inevitable if the Régles were to be strictly applied to the generic name Ligia, in view of the fact that the name Ligia Fabricius, 1798, is an invalid junior homonym of the name Jzgia Weber, 1795, for this would mean that the name Ligia, which for 150 years has been almost universally applied to an extremely well-known genus of Isopods, could no longer be applied in this way. I have been informed by the Secretary to the International Commission that in January, 1946, the Commission received an identical application from Dr. A. M. Buitendijk and Dr. L. B. Holthuis, of the Rijksmuseum van Natuur- lijke Historie, Leyden, and that this application will be published as soon as possible in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, with a view to an early decision being taken by the International Commission on this important question. The Secretary to the Commission has communicated to me a copy of the joint application prepared by Dr. Buitendijk and Dr. Holthuis, with which I find myself in complete agreement. Accordingly, instead of myself submitting an application on this case, I desire fully to associate myself with and to support the joint application referred to above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VARY THE TYPE SPECIES OF “CAPSUS” FABRICIUS, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) IN ORDER TO VALIDATE EXISTING NOMENCLATORIAL PRACTICE By W. E. CHINA, Sc.D. (Deputy Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)211) The object of the present application is to seek the help of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in preventing the confusion which would inevitably arise if the Régles were strictly applied in the case of the generic name Capsus Fabricius, 1803 (Syst. Rhyng.: 241) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). The relevant facts are as follows : The genus Capsus Fabricius, as recognised by the majority of hemipterists, is based upon the species included in it by Fabricius as Capsus ater (=Cimex ater Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 447). This species is treated as the type species of this genus, Reuter, Kirkaldy and other authors having claimed that Fabricius himself so designated this species in 1803. Fabricius did not, however, designate any type species in the work under consideration and it is necessary therefore to ascertain which of the species included in this genus in 1803 was first subsequently selected as the type species of the genus. The first type selection made for this genus was that made by Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 433), the species so selected being cited as Cimex spissicornis Fabr., i.e., the species originally described as Cimex spissicornis Fabricius, 1777 (Gen. Ins. : 300). The species so named is currently accepted as being identical with Cimex meriopterus Scopoli, 1763 (Ent. carn. : 131). The acceptance of this species as the type species of the genus Capsus Fabricius would involve the transfer of the well-known generic name Capsus from the sub-family now known as capsiNaE to the sub-family now known a8 CYLLECORINAE, the introduction of the name MIRINAE for the sub-family now known as CAPSINAE, and the replacement of the genus Capsus, as at present understood, by the genus Rhopalotomus Fieber, 1858 (Wien. ent. Monats. 2: 307). The acceptance of the foregoing changes would undoubtedly lead, at the generic level, to greater confusion than uniformity. Further, such a change in the meaning to be attached to the generic name Capsus would involve the 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature loss of a group name based upon the name of this.genus. This would be very regrettable since the term “ Capsid ”’ for the family is well established among economic entomologists in Britain. In order to prevent the confusion which would follow the strict application of the Régles in this case, I ask the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Capsus Fabricius, 1803, made prior to the proposed decision ; (b) to designate Cimex ater Linaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the generic name Capsus Fabricius, 1803 (type species, by designation under the plenary powers, as proposed in (1) (b) above : Cimex ater Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (gender of generic name: masculine) ; (3) to place the trivial name ater Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Cimex ater) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. ee “Ss Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 REQUEST FOR VIEWS OF SPECIALISTS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SUBSTITUTION, AS REQUIRED BY THE “REGLES”, OF THE NAME “QUADRATUS” FABRICIUS, 1787, FOR THE NAME “ALBICANS” BOSC, [1801-1802], AS THE TRIVIAL NAME OF THE SAND CRAB (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) WOULD GIVE RISE TO CONFUSION OR INSTABILITY By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)271) At its Session held in Paris in 1948, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, after reviewing the information available, decided to cancel its earlier Opinion 13 as being “ incomplete and, in part, incorrect.” At the same time the Commission agreed upon the adoption of Opinions on all the issues raised in Opinion 13, except that regarding the trivial name to be used for the Sand Crab, which, as explained below, was reserved for further consideration. 2. On this question the Commission gave a ruling that, under the Regles, the correct trivial name for this species was quadratus Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus) and not the name albicans Bosc, [1801-1802] (as published in the binominal combination Ocypoda albicans), as had incorrectly been stated in Opinion 13. The Commission decided, however, before finally rendering an Opinion in this sense, to ascertain from interested specialists whether the substitution of the name quadratus Fabricius for the name albicans Bosc as the trivial name of the Sand Crab would be likely to give rise to “ confusion and instability.”” The Commission placed on record that, if specialists were to consider that the adoption for this species of the trivial name quadratus Fabricius would lead to these results, it would forthwith use its plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing the foregoing name, thus validating the name albicans Bosc. 3. A full account of the considerations which led up to the foregoing decisions is given in the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission at its Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 53 (see 1950, Bull zool. Nomencl. 4 : 573-580). 4. In accordance with the procedure described above, specialists in this group are particularly requested to send to the International Commission as soon as possible, statements describing current nomenclatorial practice in this matter and setting out their views on the question of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case. Such statements should be addressed to the Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Secretariat of the Commission (28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England). 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALID- ATE THE TERMS “ TETTIGONIA” AND “ ACRIDA” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER ORTHOPTERA) AS SUBGENERIC NAMES AS FROM LINNAEUS, 1758 (APPLICATION SUB- MITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION GIVEN IN ‘ OPINION’ 124) By ASHLEY B. GURNEY (Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Agricultural Research Admanistration, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington. D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z. N.(S.)328) The followmg application is hereby submitted to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) that Tettegonia Linnaeus be accepted as of subgeneric value as from 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 429), under the plenary powers, and that it be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species; (2) that Acrida Linnaeus be accepted as of subgeneric value as from 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 427), under the plenary powers, and that it be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Gryllus turritus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. 1. Tettigonia Tettigonia is one of six subdivisions! of Gryllus recognised by Linnaeus, 1758, and used by him im a sense corresponding to subgenera of modern workers. Although this term was invalidated as of 1758 by Opinion 124 (1936), most taxonomic workers in the Orthoptera use the generic name Tettigonia Linnaeus, and the great majority of taxonomists and general entomologists utilise the orthopterous name TETTIGONIIDAE.? This family name dates from the super- generic group Tettigoniae of Stoll, 1787 (Spectres, Mantes, etc. T. 1, Amsterdam), which was given the now accepted family ending -adae by Krauss, 1902 (Zool. Anz. 25: 538). The only other family names that have been widely ised in the same sense are LOCUSTIDAE and PHASGONURIDAE.® The former is obviously unavailable here because Locusta is restricted to another family by Opinion 158 (1945). The name PHASGONURIDAE dates from Kirby, 1891 (Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1891 : 405), but has been used less generally than TETTIGONIIDAE, and in recent years relatively little, partly becuase of the assumption on the part of many workers that Phasgonura Stephens, 1835 (Ill. Brit. Ent., Mand. 6 : 15) (Type species: Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus) is a synonym of Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758 (see discussion of type species below). Validation of Tettigonia Linnaeus would permit the continued general use of the family name TETTI- GONIIDAE, thus avoiding further confusion in the nomenclature of an Order, the family names of which were formerly subject to frequent changes, but which in recent years have gradually become more standardised. The practice of working orthopterists indicates the desirability of validating Tettigonia Lin n aeus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 There are differences of opinion concerning the species to be accepted as the type species of Tettigonia Linnaeus, and in the event of Tettigonia being validated, it is important that the type species be fixed beyond further argument. The use of the plenary powers may be necessary to fix as the type species the species which will create least confusion in the nomenclature of the Orthoptera. The majority of current workers accept Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus as the type species, but I agree with Roberts, 1941 (Trans. amer. ent. Soc. 67: 30-31) that the first definite selection was that of Kirby, 1890 (Sev. Proc. Roy. Dublin Soc. 6: 481), Gryllus verrucivorus Linnaeus. If the latter selection is accepted, as should be done under a strict interpretation of the Rules, the genus Decticus Serville, 1831 (Ann. Sci. nat. Paris 22 : 159) (Type species: Gryllus verruciwworus Linnaeus) would fall as a synonym of Tettigonia Linnaeus, at the same time invalidating the well-known subfamily Name DECTICINAE. Uvarov, 1923 (Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1923 : 493) and others have considered that Leach, 1815 (Edinburgh Encyclopedia : 120) selected Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus as the type species of Tettigonia. Since Leach merely listed the species with no indication of type significance that I have discovered, type selection is not evident. Karny, 1908 (Zool. Annalen, Z. f. Ges. Zool. 2 : 202-208) has argued that G. viridissimus became the type species through the removal of all the other 16 species originally placed in Tettegonia by Linnaeus, 1758. Although selection of type species by elimination was once an accepted practice, it is believed to have no standing under present Rules except in the case of a genus containing two species when one is removed to be type species of another genus (Opinion 6, 1910) (Also see Opinion 62, 1914). Rehn, 1901 (Canad. Ent. 33 : 121) also reasoned by the method of elimination that G. viridissimus is the type species of Tettigonia, but his conclusion is so definite that it clearly constitutes a type selection, the first clear cut selection of that species, regardless of the reasoning involved. Kirby, 1890 (l.c.) reviewed the originally included species of Tettigonia Linnaeus and by the method of elimination concluded that G. verrucivorus should be the type species. (Quotation from Kirby: ‘—— which leaves G. verrucivorus as the type of Tettxgonia.”) While not accepting Kirby’s method of arriving at a conclusion on the type species of T'ettigonia, I believe, however, that his concluding statement, quoted above, constitutes a type selection, irrespective of the method used in reaching that conclusion. In the interest of nomenclatorial stability, it appears advisable to fix Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758. 2. Acrida Aerida is the second subdivision of Gryllus recognised by Linnaeus, 1758. It is of prime importance as the basis of the family name acRIDIDAEg, and, since the acridids include a very large number of highly economic locusts and shorthorned grasshoppers, it is very desirable that stability of the family 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature name be achieved. A great majority of both systematists and economic entomologists now use the name ACRIDIDAE,” which is derived from the super- generic group Acridites of Latreille, 1825 (Fam. Nat. Régne Anim. : 414-416). All other names for the family are unsatisfactory because they lack priority, have had only a small amount of usage, or because they have been applied to different zoological groups in a manner that leads to confusion. For example, the name LocuSsTIDAE dates from the group Locustariae of Latrille, 1804 (Hist. Nat. Crust. Ins. 12 : 127-136), but at that time it was applied to katydids or long-horned grasshoppers (the TETTIGONIIDAE of most current usage). In 1829, Stephens (Brit. Ins. : 301) applied the name LocusTIDAE to grasshoppers and locusts for the first time, and it has recently been done by Comstock, 1930 (Introd. Ent. : 252), Essig, 1942 (College Ent. : 90) and several others, though the name ACRIDIDAE is used by most modern taxonomists.? To add to the confusion, Comstock, 1930 (l.c. : 254) used LocustinazE for the subfamily of “ spine-throated locusts,” though the genus Locusta is not included in that subfamily, actually belonging to the group usually called the ORDIPODINAE. A family name based on Acrydiwm has also been used, but Acrydium has been almost universally® applied to the grouse-locusts (TETRIGIDAE), and so ACRYDIIDAE would be confusing if applied to locusts and grasshoppers. In order for Acrida to be available as a basis for the family name acRIDIDAE, it appears necessary that it be dated from Linnaeus, 1758, as that generic name was not subsequently brought into general use by orthopterists until the time of Stal, 1873 (Rec. Orthopt. 1:88, 95-100). Between the time of Linnaeus and Stal, Kirby, 1825 (Zool. J. 1: 432) and Curtis, 1825 (Brit. Ent. 2: 82) applied the name Acrida to katydids rather than to short-horned grasshoppers (see Roberts, J.c.:5) so that it becomes essential to establish the validity of Acrida as from Linnaeus, 1758. Krauss, 1902 (Zool. Anz. 25 : 541) first selected a type species for Acrida Linnaeus: Gryllus turritus Linnaeus, 1758. Footnotes 1. Regarding the other sub-divisions of Gryllus Linnaeus, 1758: Locusta was added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under Opinion 158 (1945) ; Bulla was suppressed as a homonym of Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 725) (Mollusca) under the amend- ment to Article 34 of the International Code adopted at Padua, 1930 (referred to in Opinion 124, 1936) ; Mantis, as of 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 689), was added to the Official List under Opinion 149 (1943). Although, under the existing Rules, Acheta was not at any time validly proposed by Linnaeus, this generic name is available for use, dating from Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 279). Curtis, 1830 (Brit. Ent. 7: 293) selected Gryllus domesticus Linnaeus, as the type species of the genus ‘“‘ Acheta Fab., Lea., Sam,” this being the first valid selection, and it estab- lishes Acheta in the same sense as formerly used, dating from Linnaeus, 1758. Karny, 1937 (Gen. Insectorum fasc. 206, Gryllacrididae : 213) listed Acheta Fabricius, 1775 (nec. Linnaeus) as a synonym of Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835, but that is a misapplication of the name, since Acheta has priority. Furthermore, no type selection of Gryllus monstrosus Drury, 1773, the type species of Schizodactylus and in included in Acheta by Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 826), prior to 1830 has come to my attention. (Linnaeus, 1767, used Mantis in a generic sense, Acrida and Acheta in a subgeneric sense.) 2. The general use of TETTIGONIIDAE and ACRIDIDAE is evidence by the utilisation of these family names in the volumes of the Zoological Record since 1922 (27 years). Both are the names currently used by the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, in the United States, and the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, for the British Commonwealth. The guidance in systematic entomology and large number of routine identifications furnished by these two Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 organizations constitute a great influence on the nomenclatorial usage of entomologists as a whole. Specialists in three outstanding centres of systematic work on Orthoptera, namely, London, Philadelphia and Paris, use the above family names. They also appear in the hand- book, “ Locusts and Grasshoppers,” published by B. P. Uvarov in 1928 and are familiar to nearly all economic workers on grasshoppers. ACRIDIDAE is the family name used in correspondence from the Anti-Locust Research Centre, in London, which organization is now co-ordinating most of the international work on large-scale grasshopper control and research. Finally, a survey of published work by leading orthopterists throughout the world during the past fifteen years shows that the preponderance of usage favours the family names TETTI- GONIIDAE and ACRIDIDAE. 3. Although the Rules are definite on certain aspects of family names, there is need for further clarification. (See Sabrosky, 1947, Amer. Naturalist 81: 153-160). (Articles 4 and 5 of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, and Opinions 133 (1936) and 141 (1943) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature concern family names.) 4. China and Fannah, 1946 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 12: 707-712, 1945) pointed out the necessity of using TETIGONIA Geoffroy, 1762, under the rules, and recognized that under paragraph 1(d) of Opinion 147 (1943) the slight difference in spelling (one or two t’s) in Linnaeus’ and Geoffroy’s names permits only one name to be valid. 5. Roberts, 1941 (Trans. amer. ent. Soc. 67: 24) has recently shown that, contrary to the traditional orthopterological practice, Acrydiwm Geoffroy, 1762, actually applies to a zoological unit included in the acrrp1pAE rather than the TETRIGIDAE. ON DR. ASHLEY B. GURNEY’S PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME “ TETTIGONIA ” SHOULD BE VALIDATED AS FROM LINNAEUS, 1758, AS OF SUBGENERIC STATUS IN THE ORDER ORTHOPTERA (CLASS INSECTA), BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLA- TURE UNDER ITS PLENARY POWERS By W. E. CHINA, Esq., M.A., Sc.D. (Deputy Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)328) (Extract from a letter dated 11th January, 1949) No confusion would result in the nomenclature of the Hemiptera from the disappearance of Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762 (either by invalidation or as a homonym of Tettigonia L., 1758). The only change in the nomenclature resulting from such a disappearance would be the restoration of the well-known generic name Ledra Fabricius, 1803, type species of the family LEDRIDAE. This would, of course, be all to the good. This fact is set out in China and Fennah, October, 1945, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 12: 711-712: “ By the above dispositions the only nomenclatorial change in Hemiptera which would result from any future invalidation of Tetigonia Geoffroy or from any validation of Tettigonia L. (Orthoptera) would be the restoration of the generic name Ledra. 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE GENERIC NAME “ TETTIGONIA ” LINNAEUS, 1758, IN THE ORDER ORTHOPTERA (CLASS INSECTA) By R. G. FENNAH (Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, St. Augustine, Trinidad) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)328) (Extracts from letters dated 12th and 30th January, 1949) A. Extract from letter dated 12th January, 1949. I understand that Dr. China has supplied you with the technical details regarding the change which will occur in Hemiptera, if Tettigonia of Linnaeus is validated. The consequential suppression of Tetigonia Geoffroy would undoubtedly be welcomed by hemipterists, as the generic name Ledra, which was displaced by China & Fennah in 1945, is well-known and long established. Moreover, the combination Tetigonia aurita (Linnaeus) is still novel and has not entered into literature, apart from the original proposals, as far as I know. B. Extract from letter dated 30th January, 1949. There is one trivial item worthy of mention when you are writing up the case, and that is the generic name Tetigonia Fourcroy, which was not mentioned in the China & Fennah paper. Tetigoma Geoffroy, 1762, is, as you say in your letter of 14th January, invalid under the decision of the Paris Congress. But the generic name was cited and validated by Fourcroy, 1785, Ent. paris. 1: 193, with the original spelling. It would accordingly be advisable to make it quite plain that Tettigonia with two “t’s” is, for the purposes of judging preoccupation of the name, the same as Tetigonia with one “‘t.” This would squarely place Fourcroy’s Tetigonia in homonymy. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 ON DR. ASHLEY B. GURNEY’S PROPOSAL THAT THE NAMES “TETTIGONIA” AND “ ACRIDA” SHOULD BE VALIDATED, AS FROM LINNAEUS, 1758, BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLA- TURE UNDER ITS PLENARY POWERS By B. P. UVAROV, C.M.G., D.Sc. (Anti-Locust Research Centre and British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)328) The proposal that Tettagonia Linnaeus, 1758, be accepted as of subgeneric value under the plenary powers, and that it be added to the Official List with Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species, is RUDDER 2 and it is considered that such action will eliminate confusion. Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762, should be definitely rejected as a homonym of Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, as this action would prevent further confusion. The proposal that Acrida Linnaeus, 1758, be accepted as of subgeneric value, under the plenary powers and that it be added to the Official List with Gryllus turritus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species, is supported. This action will stabilise the use of the family name acriprpDaE in the sense in which it is now used by all taxonomce workers on the group. The name acripipak has formed the basis of the French designation of five successive international anti-locust conferences (1931, 1932, 1934, 1936 and 1938) as ‘“‘ Conferences internationales anti-acridiennes.”’ It is also incorporated in the name of the “ Office National Anti-Acridien,” which is the French central institution for anti-locust research ; and in the name of the “ Comite Interamericano Permanente Antiacridiano ”’ established in 1948 by a Convention of nine South and Central American States. ce 39 Finally, the term “ acridology ” is now being increasingly used to define that branch of entomology which deals with aAcRTDIDAR. 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature FIRST REPORT ON MATTERS LEFT UNSETTLED IN “ OPINION” 124, IN RELATION TO THE STATUS OF THE TERMS USED BY LINNAEUS IN 1758 TO DENOTE SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA ESTABLISHED IN THE 10TH EDITION OF THE “SYSTEMA NATURAE” The subdivisions of the genus “ Gryllus”’ Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)328) 1. At its meeting held in Paris in 1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature placed on record their disapproval of the practice sometimes adopted in the past, under which the decision given in an Opinion dealt with part only of the issues involved, and agreed to invite the Secretary to the Commission (a) to examine all the Opinions so far rendered, with a view to ascertaining every instance where an application had been dealt with in- completely and (b) to submit proposals as soon as possible for the rendering, as a matter of urgency, of supplementary Opinions dealing with the questions left unanswered in the earlier Opinions concerned (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:355). This decision was endorsed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 104-105). 2. Opinion 124 provides a conspicuous example of the class of case covered by the foregoing decision, for that Opinion lays down a general principle applicable to all the terms used by Linnaeus to denote subdivisions of genera, but discusses the effect of that decision in relation to one only of the genera concerned (Gryllus Linnaeus, 1758) and, even in that case, in relation to one only of the six terms used by Linnaeus to denote subdivisions of that genus. The submission by Dr. Ashley B. Gurney of proposals relating to two other of the terms used by Linnaeus to denote subdivisions of the genus Gryllus provides a convenient opportunity for placing before the Commission proposals for such further action as is necessary in order to fill in all the gaps in Opinion 124, in so far as that Opinion is concerned with the status to be accorded to the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote subdivisions of the foregoing genus. I accordingly decided to devote to this subject the first of the Reports which, under the decision of the International Congress of Zoology quoted in paragraph 1 above, I have been asked to prepare in regard to matters left unsettled by Opinion 124. This Report I now submit for consideration by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Further Reports dealing with terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote subdivisions of genera, other than Gryllus Linnaeus, will be submitted, as and when opportunity offers. 3. Arrangement of Report: In the present Report, I deal, in turn, with each of the six terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote subdivisions of the genus Grylls. In each case I indicate such action, if any, as has already been Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 taken by the Commission in regard thereto and refer to the proposals in regard to certain of those terms which have been submitted to the Commission by Dr. Ashley B. Gurney. Where necessary, I indicate such further consequential action as is necessary, in order completely to dispose of the cases concerned. 4. The term Mantis as used by Linnaeus : At Lisbon in 1935 the Inter- national Commission decided to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Mantis Linnaeus as from 1767, that being the date on which this name was first validly used as a generic name, its use on that occasion being acceptable to specialists as it was in accordance with current nomenclatorial practice. By this decision therefore the Commission decided also that there were no grounds for the use of the plenary powers for the purpose of validating the name Mantis as from Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 425). All therefore that is now required in this connection is that the reputed but non-existent generic name Mantis Linnaeus, 1758, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. It should be noted that some authors have suggested that the name Mantis Linnaeus, 1767, is ante-dated by the name Mantes Geoffroy, 1762 (Hist. abrég. Ins. Paris 1: 399), but this is not correct, for the Commission has decided that, in the work quoted, Geoffroy did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature and therefore that no name published therein acquires availability in zoological nomenclature on that account (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 366-369). It would be well, however, finally to dispose of this matter by placing the reputed but non-existent generic name Mantes Geoffroy on the Official Indez. Finally, it is necessary at this point to refer to the decision taken by the Inter- national Congress of Zoology in 1948 that the trivial names of the type species of genera placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology should, when they are the oldest available names for the species concerned, be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; this decision is retrospective and will therefore in any case apply in the present instance when the foregoing Official List comes to be compiled. It will be convenient, however, to take the present opportunity to deal with this matter by placing on the Official List the trivial name religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 426 (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus religiosus), that being the trivial name of the type species of Mantis Linnaeus, 1767. 5. The term Acrida as used by Linnaeus: Dr. Gurney’s proposal (that Acrida should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with status as from Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 427), and with Giryllus turritus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species) covers all the principal matters which call for action in this case. It should be noted, however, that, since at present the term Acrida possesses no status as a subgeneric name as from Linnaeus, 1758, it follows automatically that there is at present no nominal genus (or subgenus) Acrida Linnaeus, 1758, and consequently that, if (as proposed by Dr. Gurney) the plenary powers are used to bring into existence the subgeneric name Acrida Linnaeus, 1758, the same powers will need to be used to provide that newly created nominal subgenus with a type species. Further, for the _ Teasons explained (in paragraph 4) in connection with the generic name Mantis Linnaeus, 1767, it will be necessary to place on the Official List of Specific 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name turritus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus turritus), the trivial name of the species proposed by Dr. Gurney to be designated as the type species of this genus. 6. The term Bulla as used by Linnaeus : The International Commission, in Opinion 124, pointed out that, even if Linnaeus had in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 427) published the name Bulla as the name of a subgenus of Gryllus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta), that name, being a subgeneric name, would have fallen (under a rule then recommended by the Commission to the Congress) as a homonym of the Gastropod name Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 725), the latter name having been published as a generic name and accordingly, being of the same date, possessing priority over its homonym published as a subgeneric name. The Gastropod name Bulla Linnaeus has now been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 305); all that is called for therefore to complete the action required in the present case is to place the reputed but non-existent name Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (in the Class Insecta) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 7. The term Acheta as used by Linnaeus: Dr. Gurney has explained in the first of the footnotes to his applciation that, while in the past some authors have treated Acheta as having acquired subgeneric status as from Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 428), others have used this name as published by Fabricius in 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 279-282, 826), when it was employed in a strictly binominal sense. It was there used by Fabricius for ten species, of which the second was Gryllus domesticus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 428). This species was selected as the type species by Curtis in 1830 (Brit. Ent. 7: 293), and this generic name is currently used in this sense. As, under Opinion 124, the name Acheta has no standing as a subgeneric name as from Linnaeus, 1758, and as Fabricius (1775) was the first author to use the word Acheta as a generic or subgeneric name, the name Acheta Fabricius, 1775, is an available name. Further, as its type species under the Reégles (Gryllus domesticus Lin- naeus, 1758) is the species currently accepted as such, there is no reason why the International Commission should use its plenary powers to validate the name Acheta as from Linnaeus, 1758, the present position by which that name ranks from Fabricius, 1775, being perfectly satisfactory. All that is required to make the position clear is (1) to place the generic name Acheta Fabricius, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial name domesticus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus domesticus) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (2) to place the reputed but non-existent subgeneric name Acheta Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Dr. Gurney and Dr. B. P. Uvarov, whom I have consulted, both support this proposal. Dr. Uvarov points out that his name Gryllulus (Uvarov, 1935, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 16 : 320) is an objective synonym of Acheta Fabricius, 1775 ; it is accordingly proposed that that name should be added to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 8. The term Tettigonia as used by Linnaeus : Dr. Gurney and Dr. Uvarov (supported from the point of view of hemipterological literature by Dr. W. E. China and Mr. R. G. Fennah) recommend that the Commission should use its plenary powers to validate the name Tettigonia as of subgeneric status as from Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 429); Dr. Gurney and Dr. Uvarov further propose that the nominal species to be accepted as the type species of this genus should be Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 430). For the reasons already explained in the parallel case of Acrida Linnaeus, 1758 (paragraph 5 above), it will be necessary for the Commission to use its plenary powers for the latter, just as much as for the former, of these purposes. The only other action called for in connection with this name is (for the reasons explained in paragraph 4 above in connection with the name Mantis) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus viridissimus), that being the trivial name of the nominal species recommended by Dr. Gurney for recognition as the type species of Tettagonia Linnaeus, 1758. 9. The reputed generic name Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762: The action proposed by Dr. Gurney and Dr. Uvarov will serve two valuable purposes, quite un- connected with one another: first, it will (as they desire) provide a legal foundation for the name Tettigonia as a generic name in the Order Orthoptera ; second, it will eliminate, as an invalid junior homonym (under the provision which is to replace (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 161-162) subsection (d) in the third paragraph of Article 35, as applied to Article 34), the confusingly similar name T'etigonia in the Order Hemiptera. The disappearance of this name is welcomed by both Dr. China and Mr. Fennah. It is desirable that the present opportunity should be taken to make the position clear by placing on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology both (1) the name Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Paris 1 : 429 (which, quite apart from the application submitted by Dr. Gurney, is already an invalid name having been published in a work in which the author (Geoffroy) did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature—see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 366-369), (2) the name Tettigonia Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 678 (which, pending the approval of Dr. Gurney’s proposal, is an available name), (3) Tetigonia Fourcroy, 1785, Ent. paris. 1 : 193 (an invalid homonym of Tettigonia Fabricius, 1775), and (4) Tetigonia Blanchard, 1852, in Gay, Hist. Chile (Zool.) 7: 282. 10. Effect of eliminating the name Tetigonia from hemipterological literature : Dr. China has pointed out that the final elimination of the name Tetigonia from the literature of the Order Hemiptera will be to restore to unquestioned availablity the generic name Ledra Fabricius, 1803 (Syst. Rhyngot. : 24), and consequently also the family name LEDRIDAE. Dr. China, after examining and (rightly) rejecting the claim advanced by Kirkaldy that Fabricius had himself designated a type species for the genus Ledra, has reported (in litt., 18th January 1949) that the first valid selection of a type species for this genus was that by Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 434) of Cicada aurita Lin- naeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 435. In view of the uncertainty that has 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature existed regarding the status of the generic name Ledra, having regard to the competing (but now finally rejected) claims of Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762, it is clearly desirable that the name Ledra Fabricius should be placed on the Official Inst of Generic Names in Zoology, with the above species as type species, the trivial name aurita Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Cicada aurita), the trival name of that species, being at the same time placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 11. The term Locusta as used by Linnaeus : At Lisbon in 1935 the Inter- national Commission used its plenary powers (a) to validate the name Locusta, as from Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 431), and (b) to designate Gryllus magratorius Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of that genus. This decision was later embodied in Opinion 158. The only supplementary action now required is (for the reasons explained in paragraph 4 above in connection with the name Mantis) to place the trivial name migratorius Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 482) (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus magratorius) on the Official Last of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology that List not having been in existence at the time when the Commission dealt with this name in 1935. 12, Having now reviewed (a) the action already taken by the International Commission in regard to the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote sub- divisions of the genus Gryllus Linnaeus, and (b) the proposals in regard to two of those terms submitted by Dr. Ashley B. Gurney, and having submitted also certain supplementary recommendations on various matters either con- nected with the status to be accorded to the foregoing terms or arising incidentally in connection therewith, we may summarise as follows the pro- posals now laid before the International Commission. These are that the Commission should :— (1) use its plenary powers to validate, as of subgeneric status, the names specified in Column (1) below, those names to be treated as having been published by Linnaeus in 1758 on the pages of the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae there specified, and (b) to designate, as the type species of the nominal subgenera in question, the species severally specified in Column (2) below :— Name of subgenus Nominal species designated as the type species of subgenus specified in Col. (1) (1) (2) Acrida Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus turritus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 427 1: 427 Tettigona Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 430 1: 429 a ed Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 (2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species severally specified below :— " (a) Acheta Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 279-282, 826 (type species, . by subsequent selection by Curtis, 1830 (Brit. Ent. 7 : 293) : q Gryllus domesticus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 428). (b) Aecrida Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 427 (as proposed, under (1) above, to be validated under the plenary powers) (type species, by designation, as proposed in (1) above, under the plenary powers: Gryllus turritus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 427). (c) Ledra Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyngot.: 24 (type species, by subsequent selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 434): Cicada aurita Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 435). , (d) Tettigona Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 429 (as pro- | posed, under (1) above, to be validated under the plenary powers) (type species by designation, as proposed in (1) above, under the plenary powers: Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 430) ; (3) place the undermentioned generic names and alleged generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Acheta Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 428 (a reputed but non-existent name). (b) Bulla Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 427 (a reputed but non-existent name). (c) Gryllulus Uvarov, 1935, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10)16: 320 (an invalid junior synonym of Acheta Fabricius, 1775). (d) Mantes Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Paris 1: 399 (a name possessing no status because published by an author who did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature). (e) Mantis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 425 (a reputed but non-existent name). (f) Tetegonia Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abréeg. Ins. Paris 1: 429 (a name possessing no status because published by an author who did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature). (g) Tetigonia Fourcroy, 1785, Ent. paris. 1 : 193 (an invalid junior homonym of Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, as proposed, under (1) above, to be validated under the plenary powers). (h) Tetigonia Blanchard, 1852, in Gay. Hist. Chile (Zool.) 7 : 282 (an invalid junior homonym of Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, as proposed, under (1) above, to be validated under the plenary powers). 118 (i) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Tettigonia Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 678 (an invalid junior homonym of Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, as proposed, under (1) above, to be validated under the plenary powers) ; (4) place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) aurita Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com- bination Cicada aurita) (trivial name of type species of Ledra Fabricius, 1803). (b) domesticus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the bimominal (ce ~— combination Gryllus domesticus) (trivial name of type species of Acheta Fabricius, 1775). migratorius Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the bimominal combination Gryllus migyatorius) (trivial name of type species of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758). religiosus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com- bination Gryllus religiosus) (trivial name of type species of Mantis Linnaeus, 1767). turritus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binomial com- bination Gryllus turritus) (trivial name of species proposed, under (1) above, to be designated under the plenary powers as type species of Acrida Linnaeus, 1758). viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus viridissimus) (trivial name of species proposed, under (1) above, to be designated under the plenary powers as type species of Tettagonia Linnaeus, 1758). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE NAMES OF CERTAIN NON-MARINE GENERA IN THE PHYLUM MOLLUSCA By A. E. ELLIS (Epsom College, Surrey, England) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)470) I submit herewith for addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names of non-marine genera in the Phylum Mollusca. I have satisfied myself that each of these names is an available name in the sense that it is not a homonym of a previously published name. Each of the nominal genera, the names of which are here recommended for admission to the Official List, is currently accepted by specialists as having the oldest available name for the taxonomic genus which it represents. In each case the species proposed to be specified in the Official Last as the type species of the genus concerned has been correctly determined as such under the Reégles, that species having been so designated or indicated by the original author or, as the case may be, selected by the first subsequent author to select a type species for the genus concerned. The gender of each generic name is indicated in brackets unmediately after the name concerned. Class PELECYPODA Corbicula (feminine) Megerle von Muehlfeld, 1811, Mag. Gesell. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 5:56 (type species, by monotypy: Tellina fluminalis Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 205). Dreissena (feminine) van Beneden, 1835, Bull. Acad. Belg. Cl. Sci. 2: 25, as emended by Dumortier, 1835 (ibid. 2 : 44) from Driessena (type species, by monotypy: Mytulus (error for Mytilus) polymorphus Pallas, 1771, Reise Prov. russisch. Reichs 1 : 478). Pisidium (neuter) Pfeiffer, 1821, Naturgesch. deutsch. Land-u. Siisswasser- Mollusken 1:17, 123 (type species, selected by Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15: 185): Tellina amnica Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. flurrat. Hist. 2 : 205). Class GASTROPODA Abida (feminine) Turton, 1831, Man. Land Freshwater Shells brit. Isl. : 101 (type species, by monotypy: Pupa secale Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. et fluriat. France : 59). Acanthinula (feminine) Beck, 1847, Amétl Ber. 24 Versammi. deutsch. Naturf. u. Aerzte Kiel: 122 (type species, selected by Martens, 1860 (in Albers, Die Heliceen (ed. 2) : xiii, 101): Helix aculeata Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2: 81. 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Acroloxus (masculine) Beck, 1837 (Index Moll. Mus. Christ. Freder. : 124) (type species, selected by Herrmannsen, 1846 (Indic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1:16): Patella lacustris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 783). Ancylus (masculine) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 201) (type species, selected by Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 181): Ancylus fluviatilis Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 201). Aplexa (feminine) Fleming, 1820, Brewster's Edinb. Ency. 14: 617 (type species, by monotypy: Bulla hypnorum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 727). Arianta (feminine) Turton, 1831, Man. Land Fresh-water Shells brit. Isl. : 35 (type species, by monotypy: Helix arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 771). ; Arion (masculine) Férussac, 1819, Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. et fluvrat. 2 : 50, 53 (type species, selected by Fleming, 1822 (Ency. brit. suppl. 4th, 5th and 6th eds. 5 : 572): Limaz ater Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 652). Assiminea (feminine) Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim.: 275 (type species, by monotypy : Assiminea grayana Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. : 275). Azeca (feminine) Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. :269 (type species, by monotypy: Turbo tridens Pulteney, 1799, Cat. Birds, Shells, Dorset- shire : 46, nec Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (Helix (Cochlodonta) goodalli Férussac, 1821, Tabl. syst. Anim. Moll. : 75). Balea (feminine) Gray, 1824, Zool. J. 1:61 (type species, selected by Herr- mannsen, 1846 (Indic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1: 103): Pupa fragilis Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 64 (=Turbo per- versus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 767)). Carychium (neuter) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluvat, Hist. 2: 125 (type species, by monotypy: Carychium minimum Miiller (O.F.), 1774, loc. cit. : 125). Cecilioides (feminine) Férussac, 1814 (Mém. géol.: 48 (type species, by monotypy : Buccinum acicula Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. et fluviat. Hist. 2 : 150). Clausilia (feminine) Draparnaud, 1805, Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 68 (type species, selected by Turton, 1831 (Man. Land Freshwater Shells brit. Isl. : 6): Turbo bidens Montagu, 1803, Test. brit. 357 (= Turbo bidentatus Strom, 1765, Trondheim Selskabs Skrifter 3 : 436)). Cochlicella (feminine) Férussac, 1821, Tabl. syst. Anim. Moll. : 56 (type species, selected by Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15: 173) : Helix conoidea Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 68 (see J. Conchol, 22 : 62)). 7 : 7 d « - 3 ‘ a ‘ 7 ¥ ¥ 5 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 Discus (masculine) Fitzinger, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oecsir. Enns 3:99 (type species, selected by Gray (1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15: 174): Helix ruderata Férussac, 1821, Tabl. syst. Anim. Moll. : 44). Euconulus (masculine) Reinhardt, 1883, SitzBer. Ges. Naturf. Freunde. Berlin 1883 : 86 (substitute name for Conulus Fitzinger, 1833 (Beitr. Landes. Oesterr. 3: 94, an invalid junior homonym of Conulus Leske, 1778) (type species, by selection for Conulus Fitzinger, 1833, by Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15: 173): Helix fulva Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. flumat. Hist. 2 : 56). Fruticicola (feminine) Held, 1837, Jsis (Oken) 30 (12): 914 (type species, selected by Herrmannsen, 1847 (Indic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 2: 450) : Helix fruticum Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluiat. Hist. 2 : 71). Geomalacus (masculine) Allman, 1843, Athenaeum, 1843 : 851 (type species, by monotypy : Geomalacus maculosus Allman, 1843, Athenaeum, 1843 : 851). Hydrobia (feminine) Hartmann, 1821, Neue Alpina 1 : 258 (type species, by monotypy : Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805, Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France: 40 (=Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803, Test. brit.: 317)). Hygromia (feminine) Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. Eur. mérid. 4: 66 (type species, selected by Herrmannsen, 1847 (Indic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 547) : Heliz cinctella Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluvat. France : 87). Lacinaria (feminine) Hartmann, 1844, Erd-u. Siissw.-Gast. : 216 (type species, by Monotypy: Pupa plicata Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 63). Lauria (feminine) Gray, 1840, Turton’s Man. Land and Freshw. Shells brit. Isl. (ed. 2): 193 (type species, selected by Herrmannsen, 1847 (Indic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1:578): Pupa umbilicata Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France :58 (=Turbo cylindraceus da Costa, 1778, Hist. nat. Testac. Britann. : 89). Leucophytia (feminine) Winckworth, 1949, J. Conch. 23: 38 (type species, by original designation : Voluta bidentata Montagu, 1808, Test. brit., Suppl. : 100). Milax (masculine) Gray, 1855, Cat. Pulmonata brit. Mus. 1 : 174 (type species, selected by Hesse, 1926 (Abh. Archiv. Molluskenk. 2:31) and by Kennard and Woodward, 1926 (Synon. brit. non-marine Moll. : 204): Limax gagates Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 100). _Otina (feminine) Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 156 (type species, by - monotypy: Helix otis Turton, 1819, Conch. Dict. brit. Isl. : 70, nec Solander, 1786 (Cat. Portland Mus.:38) (=Gallericulum ovatum Brown, 1844, Illustr. rec. Conch. Gt. Brit. Treland : 23)). : 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Phytia (feminine) Gray, 1821, Lond. med. Rep. 15: 231 (type species, by monotypy : Voluta denticulata Montagu, 1803, Test. brit. : 234 (regarded by most authors as referable to Auricula myosotis Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 53)). Planorbis (masculine) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2: 152 (type species, by absolute tautonomy: Helix planorbis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1 : 769). Pomatias (masculine) Studer, 1789, in Coxe’s Travels in Switzerland 3 : 388 (type species, by monotypy: Nerita elegans Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. flumat. Hist. 2: 177). Punctum (neuter) Morse, 1864, J. Portland Soc. 1:5, 27 (type species, by monotypy : Helix minutissima Lea, 1841, Trans. amer. phil. Soc. 9 : 17). Pupilla (feminine) Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. : 268 (type species by monotypy: Pupa marginata Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. flumat. Hisi. 2:58 (= Turbo muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 767)). Pyramidula (feminine) Fitzinger, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oestr. Enns 3 : 95 (type species, by monotypy: Helix rupestris Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 71). Retinella (feminine) Fischer, 1877, Shuttleworth’s Notit. Malacol. 2 : 5 (type species, selected by Kobelt, 1879 (Illustr. Conchylienbuch : 223): Helix olivetorum Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3639). Rumina (feminine) Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. Hur. mérid. 4: 79 (type species, by monotypy : Helix decollata Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 773). Segmentina (feminine) Fleming, 1818, Ency. brit. Suppl. 4th, 5th and 6th eds. 3: 309 (type species, by monotypy: Nautilus lacustris Lightfoot, 1786, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. 76: 163 (= Planorbis nitidus Miler (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 163)). Subulina (feminine) Beck, 1837, Ind. Moll.:76 (type species, selected by Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15:177): Bulimus octonus Bruguiére, 1789, Ency. méth. (Vers.) 1 : 325). Testacella (feminine) Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. flurrat. France 2 : 33, 99 (type species, by monotypy: Testacella haliotidea Draparnaud, 1801, loc. cit. : 99). Theodoxus (masculine) Montfort, 1810, Conch. syst. 2: 351 (type species. by original designation: Theodoxus lutetianus Montfort, 1810, loc. cit, 2 : 351 (=Nerita flunatilis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 777)). Truncatellina (feminine) Lowe, 1852, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 9: 275 (type species, by monotypy : Pupa (Truncatellina) linearis Lowe, 1852, loc. cit. (2) 9 : 275). a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 Vallonia (feminine) Risso, 1826; Hist: nat. Hur. mérid. 4: 101 (type species, by monotypy : Vallonia rosalia Risso, 1826, loc. cit. : 102 (—Helix pulchella Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. flumat. Hist. 2 : 30)). Valvata (feminine) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. flueiat. Hisi. 2: 198 (type species, by monotypy: Valvata cristata Miiller (O.F.), 1774, loc. cit. 2: 198). Vertigo (feminine) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluniat. Hist. 2 : 124 (type species, by monotypy: Vertigo pusilla Miiller (O.F.), 1774, loc. cit. 2: 124). Vitrea (feminine) Fitzinger, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oestr. Enns 3:99 (type species, by monotypy: Helix diaphana Studer, 1820, Meisner’s Naturw. Anz. Allg. Schweiz. Ges. 3: 86 (issued separately in 1820 as Syst. Verz. Schweiz. Conch. : 13)). Viviparus (masculine) Montfort, 1810, Conch. Syst. 2: 246 (type species by original designation : Viviparus fluviorum Montfort, 1810, loc. cit. 2 : 246 (=Helix vivipara Linnaeus. 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 772)). Zonitoides (masculine) Lehmann, 1862, Malak. Blitter 9: 111 (type species, by monotypy : Helix nitida Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluoat. Hist. 2 : 32). In the case of the generic name Testacella Draparnaud, 1801, proposed above for inclusion in the Official List, there is one earlier identical name that was published as a nomen nudum a year earlier and another that was published in the same year. To prevent confusion, it is desirable that these nomina nuda should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. The names in question are :— Testacella Cuvier. 1800, Lecons Anat. comp. 1: Tabl. 5. Testacella Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertéebr. : 96. Further, in compliance with the decision taken in this matter by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, I ask the International Com- mission to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the undermentioned trivial names, being the trivial names of nominal species which are the type species of genera included in the list submitted above :— Crass PELECYPODA Specific Trivial Name Original Combination amnica Miller, 1774... ad wat ee Ate sd ... | Tellina amnica Sfluminalis Miller, 1774 say 7 es a Ae ... | Lellina fluminalis polymorphus Pallas, 1771 rr tis Ete a uae ... | Mytulus [ex err. pro Mytilus] polymorphus 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Crass GASTROPODA Specific Trivial Name acicula Miller, 1774 aculeata Miller, 1774 arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758 ater Linnaeus, 1758 Sc bidentata Montagu, 1808 cinctella Draparnaud, 1801 conoidea Draparnaud, 1801 cristata Miller, 1774 decollata Linnaeus, 1758 diaphana Studer, 1820 ... elegans Miller, 1774 aa fluviatilis Miller, 1774 ... fruticum Miller, 1774 fulva Miller, 1774 n gagates Draparnaud, 1801 grayana Fleming, 1828 ... haliotidea Draparnaud, 1801 hypnorum Linnaeus, 1758 lacustris Linnaeus, 1758... linearis Lowe, 1852 lineatus Draparnaud, 1801 maculosus Allman, 1843... minimum Miller, 1774 ... nitida Miller, 1774 octonus Bruguiére, 1789 olivetorum Gmelin, 1891... planorbis Linnaeus, 1758 plicata Draparnaud, 1801 pusilla Miller, 1774 ruderata Férussac, 1821 rupestris Draparnaud, 1801 secale Draparnaud, 1801 Original Combination Buccinum acicula Helix aculeata Helix arbustorum Limasx ater Voluta bidentata Helix cinctella Helix conoidea Valvata cristata Helix decollata Helix diaphana Nerita elegans Ancylus fluviatilis Helix fruticum Helix fulva Limax gagates Assiminea grayana Testacella haliotidea Bulla hypnorum Patella lacustris Pupa (Truncatellina), linearis Bulimus lineatus Geomalacus maculosus Carychium minimum Helix nitida Bulimus octonus Helix olivetorum Helix planorbis Pupa plicata Vertigo pusilla Helix (Helicella) ruderata Helix rupestris Pupa secale In the case of twelve of the genera, the names of which are herewith proposed for addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the name of the nominal species which is the type species of the genus concerned is not accepted by specialists as the oldest available name for the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species in question. These cases are :— Name of genus (1) Ciass GASTROPODA specified in column (1) (2) | Name of nominal species which | Oldest available name for the is the type species of the genus | species specified in colwmn (2) - (3) Helix (Cochlodonta) goodalli Férussac, 1821 Azeca Fleming Turbo tridens Pulteney Balea Gray Pupa fragilis Draparnaud Turbo perversus Linnaeus, 1758 Hydrobia Hartmann ... Cyclostoma acutum Drapar- | Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 naud Turbo cylindraceus da Costa 1778 Lauria Gray ... Pupa umbilicata Draparnaud Bulletin of Zoological. Nomenclature 125 7 . Oldest available name for Name of genus Name of type species species cited in Col. f 2) Otina Gray... Bie ... | Helix otis Turton Gallericulum ovatum Brown, 1844 Phytia Gray ... nae ... | Voluta denticulata Montagu Auricula myosotis Draparnaud, 1801 Pupilla Fleming... ... | Pupa marginata Draparnaud | Turbo muscorum Linnaeus, 1758 Segmentina Fleming ... | Nautilus lacustris Lightfoot Planorbis nitidus Muller, 1774 Theodoxus Montfort ... ... | Theodoxus lutetianus Montfort | Nerita fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758 Vallonia Risso ase ... | Vallonia rosalia Risso Helix pulchella Miller, 1774 ! Viviparus Montfort ... ... | Viviparus fluviorum Montfort | Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758 In the twelve cases dealt with above, I recommend that, in accordance with the decision of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, there should be added to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, not the trivial name of the nominal species specified in column (2) of the foregoing table, but the trivial name of the nominal species specified in column (3) of that table. | PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF } SPECIFIC TRIVIAL NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF THE NAMES 7 OF CERTAIN NON-MARINE SPECIES IN THE PHYLUM MOLLUSCA By A. E. ELLIS (Epsom College, Surrey, England) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)497) I submit herewith, for addition to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the following trivial names of non-marine species in the Phylum Mollusca. I have satisfied myself that each of these names is an available name and is currently accepted by specialists as the oldest available name, and therefore the valid name, for the taxonomic species that it represents. 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Where in the following list there are several trivial names originally published in the same work, I have thought it convenient to cite the title of the work once only, in a list appended at the end of the application. In each such case I have confined the reference given in the actual list to the name of the author, the date of publication and the page on which the specific trivial name in question appeared in the work in question, the page number being here cited in round brackets (parentheses). CLtass GASTROPODA Specific Trivial Name ocuta Draparnaud, 1805 (55) albus Miller, 1774 (164) alliaria Miller, 1822 (Ann. Phil. ‘(new 8 series) ‘3: 379). alpestris Alder, 1838 (Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 2 : 340) anglicus Wood, 1828 (Index Testaceologicus, suppt. : 19) angustior Jeffreys, 1830 (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 16: 361) . a antivertigo Draparnaud, 1801 (57) arenaria Bouchard- Ciera 1837 (Aen Soc. Agric. Boulogne. (2) 1: 190) . aspersa Miiller, 1774 (59) auricularia Linnaeus, 1758 (774) biplicatus Montagu, 1803 (361) cantiana Montagu, 1803 (422) ... carinatus Miller, 1774 (157) cinereoniger Wolf, 1803 (Sturm’s Deutschilanda uum 6 (Hft. 1): 7 cireumscriptus Johnston, 1828 (Hdin. New. Phil. J.5: ea complanata Linnaeus, 1758 Wek é contorta Linnaeus, 1758 (770) . cornea Linnaeus, 1758 (770) ‘costata Miiller, 1774 (31) crista Linnaeus, 1758 (709) crystallina Miller, 1774 (23) cylindrica Férussac, 1807 (52) .. detrita Muller, 1774 (101) dilatatus Gould, 1841 as of Massachusetts : 210) .. draparnaldi Beck, 1838 (Index rciteiali ae spe nov. dubia Draparnaud, 1805 (70) . edentula Draparnaud, 1805 (59) elegans Gmelin, 1791 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3642) = elegans Risso, 1826 (Hist. nat. Hur. mérid. 4 : 59) excavatus Alder, 1830 (Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb, as 38) fasciata Miller, 1774 (182) flavus Linnaeus, 1758 (652) fontinalis Linnaeus, 1758. (727) fuscus Montagu, 1803 (330) gigaxi Pfeiffer, 1850 (Zeitschr. f. “ Malakozool. 1: 85) glabrum Miiller, 1774 (129) granulata Alder, 1830 (Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 1: £39) hispida Linnaeus, 1758 (771) hortensis Férussac, 1819 (2: 65) hortensis Miiller, 1774 (52) incarnata Miller, 1774 (63) intermedius Normand, velles : 6) lactea Maller, 1774 (19) .. laevis Alder, 1838 (Trans. nat. ‘Hist. Soc. Northumb. 2: 337) lamellata Jeffreys, 1830 (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 16 : ne laminatus Montagu, 1803 (359) lapicida Linnaeus, 1758 (768) . leachi Sheppard, 1823 (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 14: :152) lens Férussac, 1821 (41) 7) 1852 (Description ‘ia sia : Limaces nou- Original Combination Physa acuta Planorbis albus Helix alliaria Vertigo alpestris Turbo anglicus Vertigo angustior Pupa antivertigo Succinea arenaria Helix aspersa Helix auricularia Turbo biplaticus Helix cantiana Planorbis carinatus Limax cinereoniger Arion circumscriptus Helix complanata Helix contorta Helix cornea Helix costata Nautilus crista Helix crystallina Vertigo cylindrica Helix detrita Planorbis dilatatus Helicella draparnaldi Clausilia dubia Pupa edentula Helix elegans Succinea elegans Heliz excavata Nerita fasciata Limaz flavus Bulla fontinalis Turbo fuscus Helix gigaxi Buccinum glabrum Helix granulata Helix hispida Arion hortensis Heliz hortensis Helix incarnata Arion intermedius Helix lactea Planorbis laevis. ~~ Helix lamellata Turbo laminatus Helix lapicida Turbo leachi Helix lens Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 Specific Trivial Name Original combination lilljeborgi Westerlund, 1871 Seal Acta Soc. Sct. Re (3) 8 (No. 1): 90) af ... | Pupa (Vertigo) lilljeborgi lubrica Miller, 1774 (104) major Férussac, 1807 (43) marginata Michaud, 1831 (Complément de UHistoire naturelle des Helix lubrica Helicolimax major Mollusques : 98) ‘ ; Paludina marginata maximus Linnaeus, 1758 (652) : a ... | Limax maximus minuscula Binney, 1840 (Boston J. nat. Hist.3 : 435) ; Helix minuscula moulinsiana Dupuy, 1849 (Catalogue extramarinorum Galliae Testaceorum:4) .. Sas Ss ... | Pupa moulinsiana naticina Monke, 1845 (Z. 43 Malakozool. 2: 129) e ou ... | Valvata naticina neglecta Draparnaud, 1805 (108) AS Sse a ... | Helix neglecta nemoralis Lainneus, 1758 (773)... ora a a dae ... | Helix nemoralis nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 (117) es ne ae +e ... | Helix nitidula oblonga Draparnaud, 1801 (56) Se aaa eee ot ite ... | Succinea oblonga obvoluta Miiller, 1774 (27) aa ies Helix obvoluta palustre Miller, 1774 (131) —... Buccinum palustre parallelus Say, 1821 (J. Acad. nat. Sci. + Philad. 2: 164) Planorbis parallelus parvula Férussac, 1807 (111) ... Clausilia parvala patulum Draparnaud, 1801 (39) Cyclostoma patulum pellucida Miller, 1774 (15) Helix pellucida peregrum Miiller, 1774 (130) Buccinum peregrum petronella Pfeiffer, 1853 (Monographia | Heliceorum viventium Si: 95) Helix petronella piscinalis Miiller, 1774 (172) Nerita piscinalis pomatia Linnaeus, 1758 (771) . Helix pomatia pumila Pfeiffer, 1828 (Naturgeschichte deutsch, Land- und Siiss- wasser-Mollusken 3:41) ... . | Clausilia pumila pura Alder, 1830 (Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 1: +36). ... | Helix pura putris Linnaeus, 1758 (774)... = Ban ... | Helix putris pygmaea Draparnaud, 1801 (57) ies aes 64 ae ... | Pupa pygmaea pygmaea Draparnand, 1801 (93) ate Se % a ... | Helix pygmaea pyramidata Draparnaud, 1805 a te vg i sibs ... | Helix pyramidata pyrenaica Férussac, 182] (25) . 506 ae sae “ic ... | Helicolimaz pyrenaica quadridens Miller, 1774 (107) . ao ... | Helix quadridens radigueli Bourguignat, 1869 (Catal. Moll. Paris : 16) atk ... | Lartetia radigueli reticulatus Miller, 1774 (10) .. Limaz reticulatus rolphi Turton, 1831 (Manual of the Land and Fresh-water Shelis of the British Islands : 71) ¢ Clausilia rolphi rotundata Miller, 1774 (29)... Be ... | Helix rotundata ! runtoniana Sandberger, 1880 (Palaeontographica 27: 98) ACh Nematurella runtoniana scutulum Sowerby, 1821 (Genera of Recent and Fossil Shells, pt. Ni : Testacellus, Figs. 3-6) 2 Testacellus scutulum . septemspiralis Razoumowsky, ‘1789 ‘(Histoire naturelle du Jorat 1: 278) ie : Helix septemspiralis similis Bruguiére, 1792 ‘(Eney Y “méth., '(Vers. ) cis 355) ee ... | Bulimus similis sowerbyi Férussac, 1823 (Hist. nat. Moll. 2: mt mi me ... | Limax sowerbyi stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758 (774) .. Bis ae «be ... | Helix stagnalis striata Miller, 1774 (38) Helix striata striolata Pfeiffer, 1828 (Naturg. deutach. "Land and. ‘Sassw.— = Mollusk. 3:28)... < . | Helix striolata subfuscus Draparnaud, 1805 (125) a ae ... | Limaz subfuscus subrufescens Miller, 1822 (Ann. Phil. (new ser.) 3: 43) se ... | Helix subrufescens substriaia Jeffreys, 1833 (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 16 : 515) ... | Alaea substriata. subvirescens Bellamy, 1839 (Nat. Hist. South Devon. : oa ... | Helta subvirescens tenellus Miiller, 1774 (11) Rr ae ... | Limaz tenellus truncatulum Miller, 1774 (130) : ore me 46 ... | Buccinum truncatulum ulvae Pennant, 1777 (Brit. Zool. 4: 132) ae ace ... | Turbo ulvae umbrosa Pfeiffer, 1828 (Naturg. deutsch. Moll. fie 27) i) ve ... | Helix umbrosa ventricosa Draparnaud, 1801 (62) “3 es ... | Pupa ventricosa vermiculaia Miller, 1774 (20) . ... | Helia vermiculata virgata da Costa 1778 (Hist. nat. " Pestaceorum Britanniae : 19) ... | Cochlea virgata voriex Linnaeus, 1758 (770)... ... | Helia: vortex vorticulus Troschel, 1834 (De Limnaeaceis : 51) ae aos ... | Planorbis vorticulus 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CLass PELECYPODA Specific Trivial Name Original Combination analtinus Linnaeus, 1758 (706) ... aie an ch “re Mytilus anatinus cornea Linnaeus, 1758 (678) ... "3 Tellina cornea crassus Philipsson, 1788 ( Dissertatio ... nova Testaceorum Genera: 17) Unio crassus cygneus Linnaeus, 1758 (706) . ... | Mytilus cygneus henslowana Sheppard, 1825 (Trans. linn. Soc. "Lond. “44: 190) ... | Tellina henslowana lacustris Miller, 1774 (204) _... Tellina lacuitris littoralis Cuvier, 1797 (Tableau élémentaire de P Histoire naturelle des Animaux: 425) a Unio littoralis milium Held, 1836 (Isis (Oken). 29: 281) ane ... | Pisidium milium moitessierianum Paladilho, 1866 (Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 18: 1) ... | Pisidium mottessieranum nitidum Jenyns, 1832 (Trans. Camb. phil. Soc. 4 : 304) ... | Pisidiuwm nitidum obtusalis Lamarck, 1818 (Hist. Anim. sans Vertébr. 5 : 559) ... | Cyclas obtusalis pulchellum Jenyns, 1832 (Trans. Camb. phil. Soc. 4 : 306) ... ... | Pisidium pulchellum rivicola Lamarck, 1818 (Hist. Anim. sans Vertébr. 5 : 558)... ... | Cyclas rivicola solida Normand, 1844 (Cyclades . . . de Valenciennes : 6)... Cyclas solida subtruncatum Malm, 1855 (Gétheborgs K. Vet. Vitt. Samh. Hand. 3:92 Pisidium subtrancatum supinum Schmidt, "1850 (Z. ie Malakozool. 7: 119). nee ... | Pisidium supinum tenuilineatum Stelfox, 1918 (J. Conch. 15: 296) ... ... | Pisidium tenuilineatum transversa Say, 1829 (Disseminator of seis Knowledge, New Harmony, 2 : 356) Cyclas transversa tumidus Philipsson, 1788 (Nova Test. ‘Genera : “4... Unio tumidus vincentianum Woodward, 1913 (Catalogue Brit. Spec. “Pisidium : 127 | Pisidium vincentianum References Draparnaup, J. P. R., 1801—Tableau des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France ibid. 1805—Histoire naturelle des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France Férvussac, Baron d’AUDEBARD DE. 1807—Essai dune Méthode Conchyliologique ibid. 1819—Histoire naturelle . . . des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles ibid. 1821—Tableaux systématiques des Animauax Mollusques Liynaevs, C., 1758—Systema Naturae, 10th edition. Volume 1 Montacu, G., 1803—Testacea Britannica, Suppl., 1808 Mu ter, O. F., 1774—Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium Historia 2 ro) % ef£D Kao De we” i*# » -. Pr gal \e 2a yD PR \, Psa Om 2\ RK . Nia are ‘ = a hit * —yrer-* «ee lh CONTENTS : (continued from front wrapper) Proposed validation under the plenary powers of the generic names Ligia Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda), and Carcinus Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By the late Alida M. Buitendijk and L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van repaite bee ante wins The Netherlands) On the generic name Ligia as used by Weber, 1795, and. by Fabricius in 1798 (Class Crustacea, Orders Decapoda and Isopoda respectively. By Poul Goes Cha setas, of ae hagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) . Proposed use of the plenary powers to vary ive type species af Capsus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). By W. E. China, Sc.D. (Deputy Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) Request for views of specialists on the question whether the substitution, as required by the Régles, of the name quadratus Fabricius, 1787, for the name albicans Bosc [1801-1802], as the trivial name of the Sand Crab (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) would give rise to confusion or instability. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the terms Tettigonia and Acrida (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) as subgeneric names as from Linnaeus, 1758 (application submitted in response to Opinion 124). By Ashley B. Gurney (Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Agricultural Research Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) On Dr. Ashley B. Gurney’s proposal that the name Téttizonia should be validated, as from Linnaeus, 1758 as of subgeneric status in the Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta), by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By W. E. China, Sc.D. (Deputy Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) On the proposed validation of the name Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758, in the Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta). By R. G. Fennah (Imperial College of Hh sie St. Augustine, Trinidad) .. On Dr. Ashley B. Gurney’s roel that ‘the names Tetheinia and Acrida should be validated, as from Linnaeus, 1758, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, under its plenary powers. By B. P. Uvarov, C.M.G., D.Sc. (Anti-Locust Research Centre and British Museum (Natural History), London) FIRST REPORT on matters left priagtaied in ‘Oputon 124, in relation to the status of the terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 to denote subdivisions of genera established in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae: The subdivisions of the genus Gryllus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Or- thoptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary _ to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Page 99 102 103 105 106 109 110 111 112 CONTENTS : (continued from overleaf) Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Page of the names of certain non-marine genera in the Phylum Mollusca. By A. E. Ellis (Epsom College, Surrey, England) 119 Proposed addition to the Officia? List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology of the names of certain non-marine species in the Phylum Mollusca. By A. E. Ellis (Epsom College, Surrev, England) . 3 % i“ bat ie os eae Notice to Subscribers The concluding Part (Part 12) of Volume | of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (containing the Title Page, indexes, etc., for that volume) is now in the press and will be published shortly. Form of Applications to the International Commission on Zoclesicat: Nomenclature Zoologists proposing to submit applications to the International Commiatien on Zoological Nomenclature are requested to submit those applications, in duplicate — and typed, double-spaced, on one side of the page only, and with wide margins. Owing to the lack of staff available for copying applications not submitted in the foregoing ~ form, preference for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature will — necessarily be given to applications submitted in the form requested. — Full particulars of the bibliographical and other data required to be included in applications submitted to the International Commission will be found in the “In- — structions to Authors ” given on page 88 of Volume | of the present journal. Publications of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ~ The publications issued by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature — on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are on sale © at the Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Queen’s — Gate, London, S.W.7. All communications on this subject should be addressed to — the Publications Officer. q l’rinted in Great Britain by Mrtcnim AND Son, Ltp., Westminster, London VOLUME 2. Part 5 4th May, 1951 pp. 129-160. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of _ THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE _ Edited by ‘ FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CONTENTS : Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of wae on xe wraniee ae in the present Part a 129 Notice of possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its fered) re in certain cases a : 4 a aor. (ocledballa on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and | Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 1951 Price Ten shillings _ (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ; A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re- election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (1st January 1944) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (1st January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cahrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Peirre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (6th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Persona! Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Honorary Archivist ; Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Honorary Secretary and Managing Director: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., — C.BE. Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst Publications Officer’: Mrs. C. Rosner E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust Secretariat of the Commission : 28, Park Village East, cag s Park, London, ; N.W.1 ; Offices of the Trust; 41, Queen’ S Gate, London, S.W. 7 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 2, Part 5 (pp. 129-160) 4th May 1951 ai ih a, 4 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13, 131). _ (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on _ Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” Norice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publica- tion in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (vol. 2, Part 5) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and, in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secre- tariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred _ to above. 3 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 1. Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers, is involved in appli- cations published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the following names :— (1) Titanta Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) and associated family names (Z.N.(S8.)197). (2) Dorilas Meigen, 1800, and Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) and associated family names (Z.N.(S.)221). (3) Tendipes Meigen, 1800, and Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) and associated family names (Z.N.(S.)469). (4) Philia Meigen, 1800, and Dilophus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (Z.N.(S.)498). (5) Tylos Meigen, 1800, and Micropeza Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) and associated family names (Z.N.(8.)501). 2. Comments received in sufficient time will be published in the Bulletin ; other comments, provided that they are received within the prescribed period of six calendar months from the date of publication of the present Part will be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned. 4 3. In accordance with the arrangement agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 56) corresponding Notices have been sent to the journals “ Nature” and “ Science.” FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 24th April 1951. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131 REPORT ON THE PROCEDURE PROPOSED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE TO PUT AN END TO THE CONFUSION IN THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE ORDER DIPTERA (CLASS INSECTA) RESULTING FROM THE CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE GENERIC NAMES PUBLISHED BY MEIGEN IN 1800 IN HIS “NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION DES MOUCHES A DEUX AILES”: FIRST INSTALMENT OF APPLICATIONS By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)191) At their Session held in Paris in July, 1948 (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 44) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 552-558), the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had under consideration the con- tinued state of confusion in the generic nomenclature of the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) arising in part out of the difficulty of determining what species should be regarded as being the type species of the genera established by Meigen (J.G.) in 1800 in his Nowvelle Classification des Mouches & deux Ailes, and in part out of the reluctance of some workers to accept the generic names in question. 2. The first of these difficulties was due, it was recognised, to the ambiguities of the ruling given in Opinion 46 in regard to the method to be adopted in determining the type species of genera, the names of which were published without any included species being cited by name. Accordingly, when con- sidering the incorporation in the Régles of the rulings given in previously published Opinions, the Commission gave particular attention to the foregoing subject when they came to consider Opinion 46. Their object was to secure a procedure which could be readily applied and which was not marred bv the self-contradictory features which had led to such great difficulties in applying the decision given in the foregoing Opinion. As will be seen from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 159-160, 346), the Commission agreed to recommend to the Congress, and the Congress approved, that in place of the provisions specified in Opinion 46 there should be inserted in the Régles a provision making it clear that, where, prior to lst January, 1931, a generic name was published for a genus established (a) with an indication, definition or description, but (b) with no nominal species distinctly referred to it, the first nominal species referred to the genus by the same or another author is, or are, to be regarded as the sole originally included species and therefore that, where that author did not himself either designate or indicate that species or one of those species as the type species of the genus, the species in question are alone eligible for selection as the type species of that genus. It will be seen at once that the main feature of the foregoing provision lies in the substitution of a purely objective criterion for determining the type species of a genus established without cited included species for the subjective provision included in Opinion 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46 that, in order that a species included by a later author may be eligible for selection as the type species of such a genus, that species must be capable of ° being ‘recognized from the original generic publication,” a provision that could never lead to absolute finality for a type selection made for such a genus ; moreover, the decision taken in Paris eliminates (as already noted) the contra- diction between the provision quoted above and the later provision in Opinion 46 that “the first species published in connection with the genus becomes tpso facto the type.” Thus under the decision taken in this matter by the Commission and the Congress in Paris, the major part of the area in dispute in regard to the generic names published by Meigen in 1800, disappears alto- gether. Under the Paris decision, all that it is necessary to do to ascertain the type species of any given generic name published by Meigen in 1800, is to examine Hendel’s paper of 1908, and the immediately following literature and to ascertain therefrom what species was first included in the genus in question ; if a species was then selected as the type species, that selection is to be accepted under the Régles, while if two or more species were then placed in the genus and none was selected as the type species, it is necessary only to ascertain which of those species was the first to be subsequently so selected. 3. While therefore there is no longer any technical difficulty in determining the type species of the Meigen (1800) genera, there remains the difficulty created by the reluctance felt by many dipterists to discard long-established and well known generic names published by Meigen in 1803 in favour of the “1800” names unearthed by Hendel in 1908. It appeared evident to the Commission, when it considered this matter in Paris, that the only means of putting an end to this !ong-drawn-out controversy would be by considering each of the rival pairs of names in turn and, having done so, in the light of representations submitted by specialists, to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology whichever name appeared to have the greater following and on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name which had the lesser following (the plenary powers being used to such extent as might be necessary for the foregoing purpose). The Commission further agreed that the decisions to be taken on these disputed Meigen names should be taken “on the basis of all available information relating to the degree of confusion to which the stabilisation or, as the case might be, the suppression of the Meigen (1800) names concerned would be likely to give rise and, in particular, of data regarding the relative use (i) in systematic literature, (il) in the literature of applied biology, and (iii) in routine identifications carried out by entomological institutions, of the Meigen (1800) names in question and the corresponding Meigen (1803) or other names, in successive recent periods.” 4. It was the hope of the Commission that the foregoing procedure would provide a fair and equitable basis for putting an end to the present state of confusion in dipterological literature, and the Commission agreed therefore to take all practicable steps to promote the submission of applications designed to secure a decision regarding the names to be accepted for the genera in question ; the Commission decided further to reach decisions as rapidly as possible on applications so submitted. Already by the time of the Paris Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133 Congress, two applications had been received by the Commission relating to generic names published by Meigen in 1800. The first of these applications (Z.N.(S.)197) was submitted by Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.) and was designed to secure the validation, under the plenary powers, of the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803, by the suppression of the earlier name Titania Meigen, 1800; the second (Z.N.(S.)221), which was received from Mr. William F. Rapp, Jr. (then of the Department of Entomology, Univer- sity of Illinois, Urbana, IIl.), was concerned to secure a similar validation of the name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803], by the suppression of the earlier name Dorilas Meigen, 1800. During the last two and a half years three further applications have been received in regard to Meigen names. These are: (1) an application (Z.N.(S.)469) received from Dr. John Smart (Cambridge University) for the use by the International Commission of its plenary powers to validate Chironomus Meigen, 1803, by suppressing Tendipes Meigen, 1800 ; (2) an application (Z.N.(S.)498) received from Professor D. Elmo Hardy (University of Hawaii) for the addition of the name Philia Meigen, 1800, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) an application (Z.N.(8.)501) received from Professor Martin L. Aczél (University of Tucuman, Argentina) for the addition of the name Tylos Meigen, 1800, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and a counter-application received from Dr. John Smart for the use by the International Commission of its plenary powers to suppress the foregoing generic name and to validate the name Micropeza Meigen, 1803. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at its Paris Session, this group of applications was among the first to be sent:to the printer for publication in Volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 5. As will be seen from the decision taken in Paris in regard to the pro- cedure to be followed in this matter, the International Commission is most anxious to assist in securing settlements regarding the names to be used for these genera on whatever basis may be found to command the widest measure of support and is therefore calculated to put an end to confusion and to restore uniformity of practice. 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. APPLICATION FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ CHLOROPS” MEIGEN, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By C. W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.) (Commissicn’s reference Z.N.(S.)197) The name Titania Meigen is one of the disputed names of Meigen, 1800, declared available in Opinions 28 and 152. (For facsimile, see 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 155-156). Hendel (1908, Verh. zool_—bot. Ges. Wien, 58: 63) who resurrected the Meigen 1800 paper, stated that Titania was equal to Chlorops Meigen, 1803, and he was followed in this by Coquillett (1910, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 37 : 499-647) and Stone (1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34: 415). Except for mere mention in a few lists, and in general papers such as those of Hendel and Stone, the name Titania has never been applied in any taxonomic work on the CHLOROPIDAE in the 145 years since its appearance. The name Chlorops, on the other hand, has been used constantly since 1803 for a great number of species in every faunal region of the world, and has given its name to the family cHLoROPIDAE. Change of the name to T%tania would be con- fusing, undesirable and, in view of the patent error involved, as explained below, particularly inappropriate. The type species of Chlorops Meigen, 1803, is considered by the writer to. be Chlorops pumilionis (Bjerkander 1778) (= Musca pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778), by selection by Westwood (1840), although most workers have cited the selection of Chlorops laeta Meigen, 1830, by Coquillett (1910). The dis- cussion of this question is presented by Sabrosky (1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34: 735-765). (For an extract from this paper, see Annexe 1.) HISTORY OF THE NAME TITANIA MEIGEN Meigen, 1800: Titania erected. ‘‘7 espéces,’ none mentioned by name. Hendel, 1908( : 63): Titania, 1800 = Chlorops Meigen, 1803. Coquillett, 1910 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37): Titania = Chlorops ; type species of both, Chlorops laeta Meigen. Hendel, 1910 (Wien ent. Ztg. 29: 312): suggested that Titania was more like Gaurax than Chlorops (two quite different genera, in different subfamilies !) Duda, 1933 (Chloropidae, in ‘“‘ Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region,” Lfg. 70: 147): used Chlorops. Stone (1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer., 34:415): Titania recognized, with Chlorops as synonym, Type species, Chlorops laeta Meigen, - ali ee eee i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135 Sabrosky (1941): Chlorops recognized. Titania a genus dubium, on zoological grounds. (For an extract from this paper, see Annexe 2.) Titama Meigen, 1800 versus Chlorops Meigen, 1803. Hendel (1908 : 63) stated that these names applied to the same genus. The writer believes that this is an untenable position zoologically, for the following reasons :— (1) The description of Titania will not apply to a single species of Chlorops. Hendel (1910) quickly saw his error and his 1908 reference must have been ill-considered. (2) There is no basis whatsoever for associating the brief descriptions of Titania Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen, 1803. The former was said to have an oblong, obtuse distal antennal segment, with a bearded arista (which fits no Chlorops!); the latter, an almost circular segment with naked arista. (3) Assuming that the group represented by the name Titania Meigen, 1800, appeared somewhere in Meigen’s 1803 paper, a comparison of the descriptions shows that there is only one which is almost identical (Chamaemyia), and it is strange indeed that Hendel did not notice it. The three descriptions can be compared as follows :— Chlorops Meigen, 1803 Titania Meigen, 1800 Chamaemyia Meigen, 1803 Die Fihlhérner zweigliederig Antennes a deux articulations | Die Fuhlhorner senkrecht, zweigliederig das _ vorderste Glied fast | la seconde oblongue, obtuse das vorderste Glied léanglich, kreisrund, flach flach mit nakkter Borste an der | garniealabase dun poil barbu | mit einer haarigen Borste an Wurzel : der Wurzel Die Stirne breit, ungestreift Front large Die Stirne breit, ungestreift Der Hinterleib flach, nakkt Corps glabre, plat Der Hinterleib feinhaarig oder nakkt Die Fligel parallel Ailes croisées Die Fligel parallel It is obvious that the non-essential details are alike for the three ; in the only critical points given, Chlorops and Titania are dissimilar, but Titania and Chamaemyia are the same. The two new points in the 1803 description -(“senkrecht”” antennae and “ ungestreift’”’ front) were applied to several genera in the 1803 paper but not in the 1800 paper, and thus were characters that Meigen added apparently as the result of later study. Even though it would appear that a mistake was made, it would certainly serve no good purpose even to consider replacing Chamaemyia, nor would any good result from overthrowing the properly established and well-known Chlorops. Therefore, (1) because the name Titania has never been applied in the entire literature on CHLOROPIDAE ; (2) because its adoption would overthrow a long established name for 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a large and cosmopolitan genus used as the root of the family name ; and (3) because the name Titania was patently associated with the wrong genus of Meigen 1803. It is respectfully requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (i) acting in virtue of their plenary powers should suspend the Regles and: (a) suppress the name Titania Meigen, 1800, for all purposes other than Article 34; (b) validate the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803, and (c) designate Musca pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778, as the type species of Chlorops Meigen, 1803 ; (ii) place the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803, with the above species as type species, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Annexe 1. Extract from a paper by Sabrosky (C.W.), 1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 740 Chlorops Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insekt. (Illiger) 2, p. 278. No species. 1830, Syst. Berschr., 6,p. 140. Sixty species. Type, Chlorops pumilionis (Bjerkander) (= Musca pumilionis Bjerkander 1778) as Chlorops lineata Fabricius, the twenty-first species. (By designation by Westwood, 1840, p- 147, referred to in error as “C. pumilionis L.”). Synonyms: Oscinis Latreille, 1804 (isogenotypic). Cotilea Lioy, 1864. For many years, Chlorops and Oscinis were regarded as synonymous. In his studies of the Palaearctic Chloropidae, however, Duda (1933) separated them on the character of the haired vs. bare mesopleura of what he regarded as their respective genotypes. The controversy affects the generic name of hundreds of species in all faunal regions. Coquillett (1910), Malloch (1913, 1931, 1938), Duda (1933) and others have accepted Chlorops laeta Meigen as the genotype of Chlorops, by desig- nation of Rondani (1856, p. 125). They have overlooked the prior designation by Westwood (1840) cited above. Under the Code (Opinion 71) Westwood’s designations are available if the species were originally included. The species in question C. pumilionis, was included by Meigen in the synonymy of C. lineata (Fabricius), and was also represented in Meigen (1830) by the synonymous names, C. nasuta Schrank, the fifth species, and C. taentopus Meigen, the ninth species. The present synonymy as accepted by Duda (1935, p. 192) is as follows : Chlorops pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778 (Musca) = Musca lineata Fabricius, 1781, } i } d : P ', : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137 = Musca nasuta Schrank, 1781. == Chlorops taeniopus Meigen, 1830. It is true that Westwood credited pumilionis to Linnaeus on p. 147, but this is an apparent lapse, for in other parts of his work (e.g. on p. 574) he, discussed the species and referred to it properly as of Bjerkander, 1778. Since Chlorops and Oscinis are found to have the same species as genotypes, the latter name must fall as an absolute synonym. Of recent workers, both Balachowsky and Mesnil (1935, Les Insectes nuisibles aux plantes cultivées, I, p. 935) and Collin (1939, Ent. Monthly Mag., LXXV, p. 152) have recog- nized this fact. Chlorops in the sense of Duda (including species with hairs on the mesopleura, as in laeta) is thus left without a name. No name will be proposed here, however, because the validity of the grouping is doubt- ful. Collin (1939, loc. cit.) comments that ‘‘ Duda’s character for the sub- division of the genus Chlorops does not hold good in all specimens.” Annexe 2. Extract from a paper by Sabrosky (C.W.), 1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 747-748. ; Titania Meigen, 1800, Nouvelle Classification, p. 35. No species. Genus dubium. Many authors (e.g. Hendel, 1908 ; Coquillett, 1910) have regarded Titania 1800 as identical with Chlorops Meigen, 1803, but Hendel (1910, Wien. Ent. Zeit., XXIX, p. 312) suggested that it might be Gaurax. From the brief description (“la seconde [antennal segment] oblongue ”’), it seems not to be Chlorops s.str. and probably not Gauraz. Since the guesses include two such distinct genera in opposite subfamilies, it seems futile as well as dangerous to try to place the name. If we follow the dictum that “no species is avail- able as genotype unless it can be recognized from the original generic publica- tion” (Opinion 46), the name Titania can never be used, for the description is unrecognizable as it stands. Under the rule of the first reviser, we should probably have to accept the action of Hendel, 1908 (Verh. zool.—bot. Ges. Wien LVIII, p. 63), who stated that Chlorops = Titania. The genotype of Chlorops would thereupon become ipso facto the genotype of Titania (Article 30, II, f) . and the name Chlorops would fall as an isogenotypic synonym. Hendel’s association of generic _ names was based in large part upon a comparison of the wording of the generic descriptions in the 1800 and 1803 papers. However, when we compare the descriptions of Chlorops and Titania, it is difficult to understand how Hendel _ reconciled them. Under Titania, Meigen wrote: “ Antennes 4 deux articu- _ lations: la seconde oblongue, obtuse, garnie 4 la base d’un poil barbu”’ (a bearded bristle). The description of Chlorops 1803 on the other hand is as _ follows: “ Die Fiihlhérner zweigliederig : das Vorderste Gled fast kreisrund, _ flach, mit nakkter Borste an der Wurzel.” The error of associating a genus 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature having an oblong distal antennal segment and plumose arista with one having a rounded antennal segment and naked arista was later recognized by Hendel himself (190, op. cit.), when he suggested that Titania was more like Gauraz. Actually there is little evidence that it is even a Chloropid. The safest course is to regard it as unrecognizable and a genus dubium. ON DR. C. W. SABROSKY’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAMES “ TITANIA ” MEIGEN, 1800, AND “ CHLOROPS ” MEIGEN, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)197) It should be noted that the application relating to the generic names Titania Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen, 1803, submitted to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. C. W. Sabrosky, was received in November 1945, and was therefore prepared long before the establishment by the International Congress of Zoology either of the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology or of the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. If the Commission approve the proposals submitted by Dr. Sabrosky, the action which, under the decisions referred to above, it will be necessary to take will be somewhat more extensive than that indicated in the application, for in addition it will be necessary (1) to place the name Titania Meigen, 1800 (consequent upon its suppression under the plenary powers) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, and (2) to place the trivial name pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778 (as published in the binominal combination Musca pumilionis) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. The generic names Titania and Chlorops are both feminine in gender. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139 ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NAME “ TITANIA” MEIGEN, 1800, IN FAVOUR OF THE NAME “CHLOROPS” MEIGEN, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By H. OLDROYD (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)197) (Extract from a letter dated 28th September, 1950) Use of the names Chlorops & Titania The name Chlorops is used in the British Museum collection, and generally. 1 do not know of any author who uses Titania. I think there is no doubt of the fact that Chlorops is Titania. The later (German) description is almost an exact translation of the earlier French. Neither can honestly be recognized without reference to later work. In 1830 Meigen himself claims Chlorops as an earlier name for Oscinis and thereby identifies it retrospectively. ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF “TITANIA” MEIGEN, 1800, AND VALIDATION OF “ CHLOROPS ” MEIGEN, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS By JOHN SMART, M.A., D.Sc. (University of Cambridge, Departinent of Zoology, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)197) (Extract from a letter dated 2nd October, 1950) Tam in favour of the suppression of T'téanza Meigen, 1800, and the validation of Chlorops Meigen, 1803. 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ PIPUNCULUS” LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (CLASS ’ INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By WILLIAM F. RAPP, Jr. (Department of Biology, Doane College, Crete, Nebraska, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)221) I desire to petition the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to use their plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing the generic name Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (Nowv. Class. Mouches : 31) and validating the generic name Prpunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3 : 463) Class Insecta, Order Diptera, Family preuNcULIDAE). As it is a well known fact that the name Dorilas Meigen remained lost to zoological science for over one hundred years, I believe that it would avoid confusion if this name were to be suppressed, thus rendering the name Pipunculus Latreille available for the genus in question. I consider that the name Pipunculus should be allowed to remain in effective usage because of the vast amount of economic and taxonomic literature which has been written about “ Pipunculus ” and “ Pipunculidae.”’ Furthermore, all of our current textbooks of entomology use the name PIPUN- cuLipaE. I believe that this matter should be ruled upon as soon as possible, in order to attain a uniformity of usage in this matter, since both the family names PIPUNCULIDAE and DORILAIDAE are in current usage. At the present time the great bulk of entomologists are using the term PIPUNCULIDAE, especially those workers who are interested in the economic phases of species of this family, while only a small minority of workers recognize the name DORILAIDAE. I therefore ask the Commission (1) to use their plenary powers to suppress the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and to validate the name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803], (2) to place the name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803], so validated and with Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] (Hist. nat. Crust, Ins. 3.: 463) as type species, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, (3) to place the trivial name capestrism Latreille, [1802-1803] (as published in the binominal combination Pipunculus campestris) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (4) to place the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, suppressed as recommended under (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. The gender of both the generic names concerned is masculine. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141 ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME “ DORILAS” MEIGEN, 1800, BE SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN FAVOUR OF “PIPUNCULUS” LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By H. OLDROYD (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)221) (Extract from a letter dated 28th September, 1950) The names PIPUNCULIDAE and DORILAIDAE (or DORYLAIDAE) have been dealt with by Collin (1945, Ent. mon. Mag. 81 : 1-6), and I do not think that I can add any more argument to that. We in the Museum always use _ PIPUNCULIDAE. Hardy, the chief present-day worker on this family, uses DORILAIDAE, for the reasons given by Collin. , My own view, as you know, is that the revival of these names is quite _ without scientific value and that the effect of introducing them is wholly obstructive. I think the greatest contribution to the stabilisation of nomen clature in Diptera would be to annul the lot of them. 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME “ DORILAS ” MEIGEN, 1800, SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED AND “ PIPUNCULUS ” LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) VALIDATED IN ITS PLACE By ALAN STONE (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)221) (Extract from a letter dated 13th October, 1950) Thank you for your letter concerning the generic names Dorilas and Pipun- culus. I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on these names prior to publication of the case. It should first be pointed out, I think, that the genus Dorilas and the entire family to which it belongs, are of little importance to the agriculturist or general biologist, being of minor economic importance as parasites of Homoptera (see Oman, “ The Nearctic Leafhoppers,”’ 1949, p. 17) and are not used as experimental animals in laboratories. It is also a relatively small genus and family, Aczél (1948) listing 90 species of Dorilas out of 388 DORILAIDAE for the world. It does serve as the basis for a family name, so comes into some- what more general use because of this. This raises the question of reducing family name changes by permitting a family name that is established to be retained if the generic name goes into synonymy. We would then keep the family name PIPUNCULIDAE but use the generic name Dorilas. I see no serious objection to this except that the family name DORILAIDAE has come into considerable use in recent years. If a ruling permitting this could be passed before taking up these Meigen 1800 names, it would greatly reduce the need for suspending these names and would be most welcome, on that account, to the supporters of priority. © Before 1908 the name Dorilas was used scarcely, if at all. Between 1908 and 1935 it was used occasionally. Kertész, in 1910, used the family name DORYLAIDAE [sic] and catalogued the species of the world, and in 1912 and 1915, he described a number of species in Dorylas. Becker treated several species under the same name in 1915. In 1935 Sack, in Lindner, Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, used the name DORYLAIDAE and placed 74 species in the genus Dorylas. Hendel, 1928, Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, and Seguy, 1937, Faune de France, used the family name DORILAIDAE. The two leading workers in the family at the present time, Martin Aczél and D. Elmo Hardy, use the family name DORILAIDAE and the generic name Dorilas, Hardy having changed from Pipunculus to Dorilas in 1940. Their works include Aczél’s ‘‘ Grundlagen einer Monographie der Dorilaiden ”’ (163 pp.) 1948, and Hardy’s “‘ A Revision of the Nearctic Dorilaidae ” (230 pp.) 1943 and “‘ The African Dorilaidae ” (80 pp.) 1949, all major contributious on the family. It can he safely stated that the name Dorilas is firmly established t ’ . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143 in the literature by these works. Determinations in this genus made at the United States National Museum since 1940 and by Aczél and Hardy, the two leading specialists, bear the name Dorilas. It might be noted that in the past ten years, since the Division of Insect Identification here adopted the use of the Meigen 1800 names, the dipterists here made 110,341 determinations. It can be expected that a considerable proportion of these determinations, going to all parts of the world, involved Meigen 1800 names. It does not seem necessary or advisable to suppress Dorilas in favour of Pipunculus because : (1) In doing so those who felt morally obliged to follow the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, the Opinions.concerning the Meigen 1800 names, and the principle of priority would be penalized for acting legitimately. (2) The name has been used in standard reference works on the families of Diptera, a catalogue to the world species, major revisions for the Palaearctic, Nearctic, and Ethiopian regions, a key to the species of Formosa, and a basic world revision of the genera. (3) The name is not of enough im- portance to warrant suspension since it is of very little interest, except to the systematic entomologists who can readily adapt themselves to a name change established as necessary 42 years ago. This is, I hope, the information that you wish. I have not attempted a statistical, quantitative analysis of the literature, since this would involve much more time than I can afford in view of the inadequacy of present cata- logues. I feel that the requirements for application under suspension of rules, as suggested by Sabrosky and Sailer (Science 107 : 543-544, 1948) are essential if we are to avoid undue use of the plenary power of the Commission and I do not think that it can possibly be demonstrated that strict application of the rules would result in far-reaching and substantial confusion in the taxonomic use of names and/or in a lamentable change that would greatly confuse the - literature of a related field. The name Dorilas is legitimate, it has been ac- cepted by the most active workers in the family, and it is not of enough importance outside of taxonomic use to cause more than minor disturbance when replacing Pipunculus. 144 - Bulletin of Zoologicat Nomenclature PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME “ DORILAS ” MEIGEN, 1800, SHOULD BE RETAINED AND THE NAME “ PIPUNCULUS” LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) SHOULD BE TREATED AS A SYNONYM By D. ELMO HARDY (University of Hawaii, Agricultural Experiment Station, Honolulu, Territory. of Hawait) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)221) (Extract from a letter dated 19th October, 1950) I was greatly pleased to receive your letter of 1st October, 1950. I feel that it is most unfortunate that an application has been submitted to the Comission to suppress Dorilas in favor of Pipunculus. Dr. Aczél and I. have been working under the illusion that this matter had definitely been settled and that we had reached stability at least in the use of Dorilas over Pipunculus. As far as I know Mr. Collin of Newmarket is the only dissenter in regard to this question. I certainly agree with Dr. Alan Stone (letter to you dated 13th October, 1950) that “ it does not seem necessary or advisable to suppress Dorilas in favor of Pipunculus.”’ I know that Dr. Aczél also takes this stand. I heartily recommend that the Commission take the opposite action and place the name Dorilas Meigen (based upon Pipunculus compestris Latreille) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, suppressing Pip- unculus Latreille (based upon the same type species) as a synonym of Dorilas. I believe Dr. Stone’s letter has adequately covered the main objections to the change back to Pipunculus. At this time it certainly would result in much more confusion, since the bulk of the literature pertaining to this group has used the name Dorilas. In order to make Dr. Stone’s letter more complete, Dr. Aczél’s papers which use the family name DoRYLAIDAE and the generic name Dorylas are as follows (it should be noted that Dr. Aczél has recently dropped the Becker emmendation of the generic name, and has corrected it to _ Dorilas).. [The titles given by Professor Hardy at this point in his letter are here, omitted because later a fuller list was received from Dr. Aczél.] It should be noted also that Lindner’s Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, Lief 93(32) : 1-5 7,published in 1935 used the names DORYLAIDAE and Dorylas. Kertész also used these names in his “ Contribution of the Know- ledge of the Dorylaidae,”’ Ann. Hist. nat. Mus. nat. Hung., 13 : 386-392, 1915. My own publications in which I have used the names DORILAIDAE and Dorilas are as follows :— 1940, Dorylaidae. Notes and Descriptions, J. Kansas ent. Soc. 13 : 101-114. 1943, A Revision of the Nearctic Dorilaidae, Univ. Kansas sci. Bull. 29 : 1-231. 1946, Nomenclature Notes on the Family Dorilaidae, J. Kansas ent. Soc. 19 : 135-137 1947, Notes and Descriptions of Dorilaidae, J, Kansas ent, Soc, 20 : 146-153, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145 1948, Notes and Descriptions of Dorilaidae, Part II, J. Kansas ent. Soc. 21 : 89-91. 1948, New and Little Known Neotropical Dorilaidae, J. Kansas ent. Soc. 21 : 124-133, 1949, Neotropical Dorilaidae Studies, Part. I, Psyche 55 : 1-15. 1948, New and Little Known Dipters in the California Academy of Science Collection, The Wasmann Collector 7 : 129-137. 1949, The African Dorilaidae, Mém. Inst. Roy. Sci. nat. Belgique (2nd ser.) 36 : 1-80. 1949, New Dorilaidae from the Belgian Congo, Bull. Inst. Roy. Sci. nat. Belgique 25 (39) : 1-10. 1950, Exploration du Pare Nat. Albert, Miss, G. F. De Witte (1933-1935), Dorilaidae, Dipters, Inst. Parcs nat. Congo Belge 62:1-53. . The following are in the hands of the printer due for publication in the near future :— “‘ Neotropical Dorilaidae Studies, Part 2st OO manuscript pages, for publication in part 3 of the Revista de Entomologia for 1950. “Notes on the Shannon Types of Dorilaidae from Argentina,” 8 manuscript pages for publication in Acta zoologica Lilloana. & In the past ten years I have used the name Dorilas in all my identifications of these flies. In the course of my studies I have examined collections from most of the major museums of the world and the name Dorilas is now well established in museums throughout the United States, Europe, the Ethiopian, Oriental and Pacific Regions. 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME “ DORILAS” MEIGEN, 1800, SHOULD BE RETAINED AND THAT THE NAME “PIPUNCULUS” LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) SHOULD BE TREATED AS A SYNONYM . By MARTIN L. ACZEL (Institute of Entomology, National University of Tucumén, Tucumdn, Argentina) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)221) ™“~ * (Extract from a letter dated 6th November, 1950) Thank you for your letter dated 25th October, 1950. I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the geiieric names Dorilas and Pipunculus, as I feel it most unfortunate that an application has been submitted to the Commission to suppress Dorilas in favor of Pipunculus, and not to suppress Pipunculus i in favor of Dorilas, which appears to be reasonable. I know and support the proposals to be submitted by Dr. Stone and Professor Hardy. As Professor Hardy has pointed out, we have been working under the illusion that this matter had been definitely settled and that we can use Dorilas over Pipunculus, following the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, the Opinions concerning the Meigen (1800) names and the principle of priority. I feel it superfluous to repeat the arguments of Dr. Stone and Professor Hardy with which I wholly agree; I want but to point out that the change back to Pipunculus would certainly cause much more confusion than the placing of the name Dorilas on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, since in the past ten years the using of this name, in preference of Pipunculus, was predominate. During this period among the authors, who were con- tinuing the use of the name Pipunculus, only Mr. Collin of Newmarket calls for mention, having been in the years 1929-39 one of the leading workers in the family, with C. H. Curran, Th. Becker and P. Sack. As I know, he has written in the last ten years only some twelve pages on DORILAIDAE, while during this period Professor Hardy and I have been publishing revisions, catalogues and major contributions on this family. In order to make Professor Hardy’s letter more complete, my papers in which I have used the names DORILAIDAE and Dorilas are as follows :— 1938, Die Verbreitung der Dorylaiden im hist. Ungarn., Fragmenta faunistica Hungarica, Budapest 1 : 35-36. 1939, Das System der Familie Dorylaidae, Zool. Anz. 125 : 15-23. 1939, Die Untergattung Dorylomorpha m. von Témésvaryella m., Zool. Anz. 125: 49-69 1939, Beckerias pannonicus, eine neue Gattung und Art der Dorylaiden, Zool. Anz. 126 191-195, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ~ 147 1940, Vorarbeiten zu einer Monographie der Dorylaiden, Zool. Anz. 132 : 149-169. 1943. Sammelreferat der bionomisch-6kologischen Literatur tiber Dorylaiden, ferner liber die Morphologie der jiingeren Entwicklungsstadien (Ei, Larva, Puparium), Deutsch. ent. Z. 1943 : 1-27. 1944, Die Gattung Témésvaryella Acz., Ann. hist. nat. Mus nat. Hungar. (Pars zool.) 37 : 75-130. 1948, Grundlagen einer Monographie der Dorylaiden, as zool. Lilloana, Tucuman, : 5-168. It should be noted that in 1948 I dropped the Kertész 1910 (nec Becker) emendation of the generic name to Dorylas, which I had previously used, ' following the majority of the Central European dipterists: Becker, Séguy, Sack, Enderlein, etc. In the past ten years I have used consequently the name Dorilas in all my identifications on these flies. _ It should be also noted that, in addition to the monographic work of P. Sack (1935), C. Kertész also used these names in the following papers :— 1910, Catalogus Dipterorum, Budapest 7: Syrphidae, Dorylaidae, ete. 1912, “‘ H. Sauter’s Formosa Ausbeute : Dorylaidae,” Ann. Hist. nat. Mus. nat. Hungar. (Pars zool.) 10 : 285-299 (emendation). 1915, “‘ Contributions to the knowledge of the Dorylaidae,” Joc. cit. 13 : 386-392. Th. Becker in 1915 dropped also Pipunculus in favor of Dorilas. J " In this way the name of Dorilas is now well established in the museums and in the literature throughout all the zoo-geographical regions. +... 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE NAME “PIPUNCULUS” LATREILLE [1802-1803], AND TO SUPPRESS THE NAME’ “DORILAS” MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By JOHN SMART, M.A., D.Sc. (University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)221) The object of the present application is to seek the use, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its plenary powers for the purpose of validating the name Pipunculus Latreille [1802-1803], by suppressing the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). The following are the relevant particulars relating to the names involved in this case :— (1) Dorilas Meigen, 1800, Nowv. Class. Mouches: 31 No named species was cited by Meigen as belonging to this genus The first author to cite a species by name as belonging to this genus was Coquillet (1910, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37 (No. 1719): 536;, who .so cited Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] (in Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 463), which also he designated as the type species of this genus. (2) Prpunculus Latreille [1802-1803], in Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 463. Latreille placed in this genus only Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803], which is therefore the type species by monotypy. (3) Microcera Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Tlliger) 2 : 273. Meigen did not designate a type species but later (1824: 19) he stated that the generic name Microcera was a synonym of Pipun- culus. The first author definitely to select a type species for this genus was Coquillet (1910, loc. cit. 37 (No. 1719) : 569), who so selected Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803]. The generic name Dorilas was completely ignored by Dipterists until in 1910 Hendel synonymised it with Microcera and Pipunculus. Pipunculus campestris Latreille, the type species of each of the three fore- going nominal genera, is a well-recognized species. The genus Pipunculus Latreille is the type genus of a very distinctive, but from the economic standpoint unimportant, family of Diptera, the, PIPUNCULIDAE—the Big-Headed Flies. This genus and family are universally known by these names, except by those specialists who, following Coquillet, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149 have used the generic name Dorilas (or its emended form Dorylas) and the family name DORILAIDAE (or DORYLAIDAE). It is clearly very desirable that an end should be put as soon as possible to the present divergence of practice in this matter by an authoritative ruling as to which of these names should be used. Having regard to the prepon- derant use in literature of the name Pipunculus. during the last century and a half, I am of the opinion that the best course would be to establish that name in preference to the name Dorilas. I accordingly suggest that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its plenary powers (a) to suppress the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and (b) to validate the name Pzpunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] ; (2) place the generic name Prpunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (type species, by monotypy: Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802- 1803]) on the Official Inst of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place the undermentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (as proposed, under (1) (a) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers) ; (6) Microcera Meigen, 1803 (an objective synonym of Dorilas Meigen, 1800, and Pzpunculus Latreille, [1802-1903)) ; (4) place the trivial name campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] (as published in the binominal combination Pipunculus campestris) on the Official Inst of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “CHIRONOMUS” MEIGEN, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By JOHN SMART, M.A., D.Sc. (University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)469) The object of the present application is to secure the use by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers for the purpose of providing a valid foundation for the use of the generic name Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), a name of exceptional importance in view of its deeply entrenched use in medical and other literature. The following are the relevant particulars relating to the names involved in this case :— (1) Tendipes Meigen, 1800, Nouv. Class. Mouches : 17 No named species was cited by Meigen as belonging to this genus. The first author to cite named species as belonging to this genus — was Hendel in 1908 (Verh. zool.bot. Ges. Wien 58:49). One of the three species so cited was Tipula plumosa Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 587). . Two years later this species was selected as the type species by Coquillet (1910, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37 (No. 1719) : 612). (2) Chironomus Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 2 : 260. Three named species were included by Meigen in this genus. The first of these species, Tipula plumosa Linnaeus, was selected as the type species by Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach.— Ins. : 442). Latreille ([1802-1803], 7 Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic, Crust. Ins. 3 : 425) mentioned the name Tendipes in discussing the subdivision of the genus Tipula Linnaeus, 1758, thus: ‘“‘ Exemples. Tipula plumosa. Lin.—Tipula culiciformis De Geer.—Les genres helea, tendipes de Meigen.” Apart from this one reference by Latreille, the generic name Tendipes was completely ignored by Dipterists, until in 1908 Hendel synonymised it with Chironomus Meigen, 1803, mentioning at the same time the names of the three originally included species of the latter genus. It must be admitted that Hendel was correct in associating Tendipes with Chironomus and Helea with Ceratopogon rather than vice versa. There is no doubt but that of the two species mentioned, plwmosa fits better into the diagnosis of Tendipes than of Helea. } . ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151 Tipula plumosa Linnaeus, the type species of each of the nominal genera in question, is a well-recognized species. The genus Chironomus Meigen is the type genus of the famlly cHIRONOMIDAE —the non-biting Gnats—in the Diptera. This family is an exceptionally well-known one. The liability of species of this family, both as adults and in their aquatic larval stages, to be captured with, and/or confused with, ‘mosquitoes has led to the generic name Chironomus and the family name CHIRONOMIDAE becoming firmly embedded in the literature of medical ento- mology. Chironomus is a type-animal in laboratory teaching, both in ento- mology and in general zoology. The larvae are moreover an important con- _ stituent of fish food and they also play an important role in the fauna of sewage-disposal plants and filter-beds. The names Chironomus and CHIRO- NOMIDAE are thus found in much economic literature. In the case of an important genus and family such as the present, it is clearly very desirable that an end should be put as soon as possible to the present divergence of practice in this matter by an authoritative ruling as to which of the two names in question should be used for this genus. In view of the preponderant use of the name Chironumus in the literature of the last century and a half, and the importance of this name in medical and other fields of applied biology, I am of the opinion that the best course and the one calculated to restore uniformity of nomenclatorial usage with the minimum of inconvenience—for some inconvenience will be inevitable whatever decision is taken—would be to establish the name Chironomus in preference to the name Tendipes. I accordingly suggest that the International Commission on: Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its plenary powers (a) to suppress the name Tendipes Meigen, 1800, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and (0) to validate the name Chironomus Meigen, 1803 ; (2) place the generic name Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810): Tipula plumosa Linnaeus, 1758) (gender af generic name: masculine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place the generic name Tendipes Meigen, 1800 (as proposed, under (1) (a) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers) (gender of generic name: masculine) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) place the trivial name pluwmosa Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Tipula plumosa) on the Official Last of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL THAT THE PLENARY POWERS SHOULD BE USED TO SUPPRESS THE NAME “TENDIPES” MEIGEN, 1800, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE NAME “CHIRONOMUS” MEIGEN, a — INSECTA, ORDER RA) By ALAN STONE (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)469) (Letter dated 27th March, 1951) In response to your letter of 7th March, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to protest the proposed suppression of the generic name Tendipes Meigen, 1800 (type species: Tipula plumosa Linnaeus). The name Tendipes is very firmly established in the literature by the works of Kieffer. 1911-1916, Gripekoven, 1914, Kruseman, 1933, 1939; de Meijere, 1935, 1939, Hennig, 1941, 1950, Beyer, 1941, Soot-Ryen, 1942-1943 ; Rapp, 1943, Townes, 1944— 1945, Wirth, 1946-1950, Procter, Stuardo, Johnson, 1946, Morrissey, 1946, 1950, Hauber, 1946, 1949, Chernovsky, 1948, Marcuzzi, Sonderup, 1949, Goetghebuer (7 Lindner, 1936-1944). This includes Gripekoven’s 100 page work on “ Minierende Tendipediden,” Goetghebuer’s large work on the family in Lindner’s “ Fliegen der palaearktischen Region,” and Townes’ revision of the Nearctic species of the Tendipedini. At least 120 species have been originally described in the genus Tendipes and probably many more. There is no real confusion involved since the names are equivalent and in order to examine the literature one must know this anyway. The family is of considerable interest in ecology and wild life management but I personally do not think that this is sufficiently important to warrant suspension of the rules in this case. Here again, a ruling that would permit retention of the family name based on a synonym would obviate most of the difficulty. Ifthe name Tendipes had been suppressed in 1913, along with all the other Meigen 1800 names, I would be very pleased. Since this.was not done, a considerable literature has been built up on the‘nomenclatorially valid name, and it seems much too late to invalidate a name that the Commission declared to be valid. —————— yo)... © wen ere. — al a ae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153 PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE GENERIC NAME “ PHILIA” MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By D. ELMO HARDY (University of Hawaii, Agricultural Experiment Station, Honolulu, Territory of Hawai) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)498) This is a simple case of synonymy of a Meigen (1803) generic name with one of his (1800) generic names. Philia Meigen, 1800 (Nowvelle Classification des Mouches a deux Ailes : 20) is recognizable from the original description and Dilophus Meigen, 1803 (Mag. f. Insektenk. Iliger) 2 : 264) is quite obviously a synonym. In accordance with Opinion 152 as supplemented by the con- clusions of the fourteenth meeting of the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature in Paris (1950, Bull. zool. Nomen. 4:552-558), application is hereby made for the Commission to place the name Philia Meigen, 1800 (type species, by subsequent selection: Tipula febrilis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 588) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and that the name Dilophus Meigen, 1803 (type species: Tipula febrilis Linnaeus, 1758, by selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 442) be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. The writer has used the name Phila, in place of Dilophus, in his papers on the BIBIONIDAE since 1937 and that name is very firmly established in the current literature of the BIBIONIDAE of the world. According to the successive volumes of the Zoological Record, supplemented by the writer’s own records, just a single reference to Dilophus has appeared in the literature since 1938. This was a note on the biology of Dilophus similis Rondani by C. Bruch (1940, “Observaciones biologicas sobre Dilophus similis Rondani,”’ Notas Mus. La Plata 5 (Zool.) : 307-315). Edwards used Dilophus widely previous to 1938, as did Duda, Okada and others, but the name Philia has replaced this in the more current literature. To revert back to Dilophus would indeed cause much more confusion than uniformity. The group is of little or no importance from an economic standpoint and the workers in applied entomology would not be affected by the official adoption of the name Philia. The writer has been making routine identifications of the BIBIONIDAE for the past fifteen years and the name Philia is now in general use in the major museums and collections of the world. The writer has used this name in the following papers :— 1937, ‘‘ New Bibionidae from Nearctic America,’ Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. 14: 199-213. 1942, “ Studies in New World Philia,” Part I, J. Kansas ent. Soc. 15 : 127-134. 1945, “ Revision of Nearctic Bibionidae including Neotropical Plecia and Penthetria,” Univ. Kansas sci. Bull. 30 : 367-547. 1948, “ Homonymy Notes in the Bibionidae,” J. Kansas ent. Soc, 21; 36, 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1948, ‘‘ British Museum Ruwenzori Expedition, ‘Bibionidae,” 1 (6) : 109-127. 1950, ‘“‘ Exploration du Pare National Albert, Mission G. F. de Witte, Bibionidae,” Inst. Parcs nat. Congo Belge 65 : 1-23. The following manuscripts are now (19th October, 1950) in the hands of the printer and will be published in the near future :— ‘“* The Bibionidae of Madagascar,” Part II, sent to the Institut Scientifique de Madagascar ,” to be published in the Memotres of the Institut. ‘The Argentine Bibionidae,”’ being published in Acta zoologica lilloana. ** A Monographic Study of the African Bibionidae (Diptera), Part II, Genus Philia Meigen,” being published in the Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society. The writer also has manuscripts on hand dealing with new species of Philia from the Pacific, Oriental and Neotropical Regions. Conclusions : The continued acceptance of Philia Meigen, 1800, in preference to Dilophus Meigen 1803, should not cause any degree of disturbance and would certainly create more uniformity and stability than confusion. The writer accordingly requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place :— (1) the generic name Philia Meigen, 1800, Nowv. Class. Mouch; 20 (type species by subsequent selection, by Coquillet, 1910 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., 37 : 488) (gender of generic name : feminine) : Tipula febrilis Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) the trivial name febrilis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed 10) 1: 588 (as published in the binominal combination Tipula febrilis) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (3) the generic name Dilophus Meigen, 1803 (an objective junior synonym of Philia Meigen, 1800) (gender of generic name : masculine) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155 PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE NAME “ PHILIA” MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY”: SUPPORT FOR APPLICA- TION SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR D. ELMO HARDY By MARTIN L. ACZEL (Institute of Entomology, National University of Tucuman, Tucumdn, Argentina) (Commission’s reference Z.N.( S.) 498) (Extract from a letter dated 6th November, 1950) Wanting to assist in stabilising the nomenclature of Dipterology, I support the proposals to be submitted by Professor Hardy concerning the Meigen (1800) name Philia in the family Brsronrpar. PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE NAME “ PHILIA” MEIGEN. 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY”: COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR D. ELMO HARDY By ALAN STONE (Umited States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)498) (Extract from a letter dated 30th J anuary, 1951) Concerning the name Philia (Z.N.(S.)498), this case is so parallel to those of Dorilas and Tylos, that I see no need to discuss the matter at leneth.* It is the nomenclatorially valid name that has been used in extensive publica- tions by Hardy. Meigen’s original description of Philia very clearly refers to the same genus as did his Dilophus. No family name is based on the generic name and the name is used very little in the literature of economic entomology. In most of these Meigen 1800 names there is no real confusion since it is merely a change from one name to another, without any change in the concept of the genus. * See pages 142-143, 160 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE GENERIC NAME “TYLOS” MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” AND OF “MICROPEZA” MEIGEN, 1803, TO THE “ OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” By MARTIN L. ACZEL (Institute of Entomology, National University of Tucumdn, Tucuman, Argentina) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)501) (Extract from a letter dated 6th November, 1950, with enclosure) Wanting to assist in stabilizing the nomenclature of Dipterology, I submit the following request for a Meigen (1800) name in the family rytipakE to be placed on the Official List. This is a simple case of synonymy of a Meigen (1800) name with the genus Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Nouvelle Classification des Mouches 4 deux Ailes: 31) which is recognizable from the original description and Micropeza Meigen, 1803 (Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 2 : 276) which is quite obviously a synonym. In accordance with the Opinion 152 as supplemented by the conclusions of the Fourteenth Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature in Paris (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 552-558), application is hereby made for the Commission to place the name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (type species by subsequent selection by Coquillet, 1910 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37(No. 1719) : 618): Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and that the name Micropeza Meigen, 1803 (type species by original designation : Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus) be sunk as a synonym of Tylos. Before 1908 the name Tylos was used scarcely, if at all. Between 1908 and 1932 it was used occasionally. Hendel treated several species under the names Tylos, using the family name TYLIDAE in 1931 (Bull. Soc. ent. Egypte, 2:61) and in 1932 (Konowia 11 : 120-121). In 1930 L. Czerny (im Lindner, Die Fleigen pal. Region 42a, Tylidae), treated this family using the name TYLIDAE and placed ten species in the genus T'ylos. The last leading worker on this family, Willi Hennig, in his world revision of TYLIDAE, 1934-1936 (1934 : Stett. ent. Ztg. 95 : 65-108, 294-330; 1935, ibid. 96 : 27-67; Konowia 14: 68-92, 192-216, 289-310; 1936; Konowia 15: 129-144, 201-239) as well as his other papers published between 1934 and 1941 used the family name TYLIDAE and the generic name T'ylos, feeling morally obliged to follow the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, the Opinions concerning the Meigen 1800 names, and the principle of priority. It should be noted also that Professor M. James in 1946 (‘‘ The dipt. family Tylidae in Colorado,” Ent. News 57 : 128-131) used also the legitimate names “EAN Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157 TYLIDAE and T'ylos. My own publications in which I have used these names are as follows: 1950, ‘‘ Notes on Tylidae I. The Palaearctical Tylidae of the Hungar. Mus.,” Acta ~ool, Lilloana (1949) 8 : 161-196. 1950, “ Notes on Tylidae II. Argentine species of the subfamily Tylinae in the Ent. Coll. of the Miguel Lillo Foundation,” loc. cit. 8 : 219-280. 1950, Catalogo de la familia de las Tylidae, Joc. cit. 8 : 309-389. The following paper is in the hands of the printer due for publication in the near future : Morfologia externa y divisién sistematica de las Tanypezidiformes, con sinopsis de las especies argentinos de Tylidae y Neriidae. 120 manuscript pages for publication in the next volume of the Acta zool. Lilloana. _In the past ten years W. Hennig, Professor James and I, have used the Same names on our identifications on these flies, examining collections from the major museums throughout the United States and Europe, from all the zoogeographical regions. The family and the genus is of no importance from an economic standpoint, having saprophagous larvae, and the workers in applied entomology would not be affected by the official adoption of the name Tylos and TyLIpan. According to successive volumes of the Zoological Record, just a single reference to Micropeza and MICROPEZIDAE has appeared in the literature since 1936. This was a short note on British MICROPEZIDAE by Mr. J. E. Collin | (1945, Ent. Rec. 57: 115-119). Conclusions : The continued acceptance of the generic name T'ylos Meigen, 1800, and the family name rytipag, in preference to Micropeza Meigen, 1803, and MICROPEZIDAE, should not cause any degree of disturbance and would certainly create more uniformity and stability than confusion. The writer accordingly Tequests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place :— (1) the generic name Tylos Meigen, 1800, Nouv. Class. Mouches : 31 (type species by subsequent selection by Coquillet (1910): Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767) on the Oficial List of Generic Names im Zoology ; (2) the generic name Micropeza Meigen, 1803 (an objective synonym of Tylos Meigen, 1800) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid - Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) the trivial name corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2): 955 (as published in the binominal combination Musca corrigiolata) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE NAME “ MICROPEZA” MEIGEN, 1803, AND TO SUPPRESS THE NAME “ TYLOS” MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By JOHN SMART, M.A., D.Sc. (University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)501) The object of the present application is to seek the use, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of its plenary powers for the purpose of validating the generic name Micropeza Meigen, 1803, by suppressing the name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). The following are the relevant particulars relating to the foregoing names :— (1) Tylos Meigen, 1800, Nouv. Class. Mouches : 31. No named species were cited by Meigen as belonging to this genus. Hendel was the first author to cite a species by name as belonging to this genus (Hendel, 1908, Verh. zool—bot. Ges. Wien 58 (2/3) : 60). The sole species so cited by Hendel was Musca corrigiolata Fabricius, 1.e., Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2): 995). That species is therefore the type species of Tylos Meigen, by monotypy. (The same species was later selected as the type species of this genus by Coquillet (1910) who regarded Micropeza as only a change of name.) (2) Micropeza Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 2: 276. Meigen cited only Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767, which is there- fore the type species by monotypy. The name Tylos was completely ignored by Dipterists until Hendel (1908) suggested that it might be synonymous with Micropeza. (He indicated his doubt by inserting a “?” before Micropeza, which was placed in the text in the position of a synonym). Subsequent authors who favoured the use of the Meigen (1800) names accepted the synonymy without question. That Musca corrigiolata Fabricius is the same species as Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus is agreed among specialists, and the species concerned is well- recognized. The genus Micropeza Meigen, 1803, is the type genus of a distinctive family of the Order Diptera—the micropEzipAE—the Stilt-Legged Flies. This genus and family have always been known by these names, except by those specialists who, following Hendel, have used the generic name T'ylos Meigen, 1800, and the family name TYLIDAE. It is clearly very desirable that an end should be put as soon as possible to the current divergence of practice in this matter by an authoritative ruling as to which of these names should be used. Having regard to the preponderant Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159 use in literature of the name Micropeza during the last century and a half, I am of the opinion that the best course would be to establish that name in preference to the name Tylos. I accordingly suggest that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its plenary powers (a) to suppress the name Tylos Meigen, 1800, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and (b) to validate the name Micropeza Meigen, 1803 ; (2) place the generic name Micropeza Meigen, 1803 (type species by monotypy : Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767) (gender of generic name : feminine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place the generic name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (gender of generic name : -masculine) as proposed under (1) (a) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) place the trivial name corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767 (as published in the binominal combination Musca corrigiolata) on the Official Last of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. eee. ea ee 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADDITION OF THE NAME “ TYLOS” MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY”: COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR MARTIN L. ACZEL By ALAN STONE (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)501) (Extract from a letter dated 30th January, 1951) The case for Tylos versus Micropeza is essentially the same as for Dorilas versus Pipunculus, although the use of Tylos has possibly been even more extensive than that of Dorilas. Aczél, Hennig, Czerny and Hendel, have all used the generic name Tylos, and the family name TYLIDAE in important revisionary works. Cresson is the most important worker in the family who has stuck to Micropeza and MicRopEzIDAE. James, Seguy, and de Meijere have also used TYLIDAE, as did Kloet & Hincks in their “‘ Check List of British Insecta.” Most of the important papers of the last fifteen years have used the name T'ylos. It seems unnecessary to repeat the general arguments that I gave in my letter concerning Dorilas* that are equally applicable here. * See pages 142-143 | 7 CONTENTS : (continued from front wrapper) REPORT on the procedure proposed by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to put an end to the confusion in the nomenclature of the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) resulting from the controversy regarding the generic names published by Meigen in 1800 in his Nouvelle Classi- fication des Mouches a deux Ailes: First instalment of applications. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Application for the use of ‘the plenary powers to validate the generic name Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By C. W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agri- culture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, x Aap athe D.C.) ~ On Dr. C. W. Sabrosky’s proposal r relating to the generic names Titania Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : On the proposed suppression under the plenary powers of the name 7itania Meigen, 1800, in favour of the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By H. Oldroyd (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) ‘ On the proposed suppression of Titania Meigen, 1800, and validation of Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) under the plenary powers. By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc. (University of Cambridge, Department of POE: Cambridge) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By William F. Rapp, Jr. (Department es Hyploey Doane College, Crete, Nebraska, U.S.A.) . On the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, "1800, “be sup- pressed under the plenary powers in favour of Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By H. Oldroyd (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) .. Objection to the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, should be suppressed and Pipunculus Latreille, [1802- 1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) validated in its place. By Alan Stone (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.) ; Proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, should be retained and the name Pipunculus Latreille [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) should be treated as a synonym. By D. Elmo Hardy (University of Hawaii, Agricultural Experiment Station, Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii) . Support for the proposal that the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, should be retained and that the name Pipunculus Latreille [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) should be treated as asynonym. By Martin L. Aczél (Institute of Entomology, National University of Tucuman, Tucuman, Argentina) Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Pipunculus Latreille [1802-1803], and to suppress the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc. ( sage of ee aera of Zoology, Cambridge) . Page 131 134 138 139 139 140 141 142 144 146 148 CONTENTS : (continued from overleaf) 4 Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Page Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc. (University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge) % 150 Objection to the proposal that the plenary powers should be used to suppress the name Tendipes Meigen, 1800, for the purpose of validating the name Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Alan Stone (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant spear Washington, D.C.) 152 . Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names i in 1 Zoology of the generic name Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By D. Elmo Hardy (University of Hawaii, Agricultural Experiment Station, Territory of Hawait) ee eS Proposed addition of the name Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names , in Zoology : Support for application submitted by Professor ; D. Elmo Hardy. By Martin L. Aczél (Institute of En- . tomology, National sun of Tucuman, Tucumdn, 5 Argentina) 155, Proposed addition of the name Philia "Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names A in Zoology : Comment on the application submitted by Professor D. Elmo Hardy. By Alan Stone (U.S. Department 4 of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, 4 Washington, D.C.) .. 155. 4 Proposed addition of the generic name T ‘ylos Meigen, 1800 (Class | Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and of Micropeza Meigen, 1803, to the Official Index cf Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. By Martin L. Aczél (Jnstitute of Entomology, National University of Tucuman, Tucuman, Argentina) f 156 Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Micropeza Meigen, 1803, and to suppress the name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By John Smart, M.A., D.Sc. (University a Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge) e 158 Proposed addition of the name Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Comment on the application submitted by Professor Martin L. Aczél. By Alan Stone (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of aio Ra and Plant es Washington, D.C.) % , 160 INQUIRIES All inquiries regarding publications should be addressed to the Publication Si Officer of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and all inquiries regarding the scientific work of the Commission to the Secretary to the Commission at the following addresses :— 4 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7, England. - International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: Secretariat of the Commission, 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. 5 Printed in Great Britain by Metcuim AND Son, Ltp., Westminster, London Se ay ae VOLUME 2. Parts 6/8 4th May, 195) ee ° pp. 161—240 _ THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL wore’ S° NOMENCLATURE - ‘ os | whi RY 198 ‘ ae ~ The Official Organ of be F ‘THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : CONTENTS : Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications enone in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. 161 Notice of the possible use by the International Gonpiision on Zoological Nomenclature of its erate Wea in certain cases bi wa ‘ ay "i 161 (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature - at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1951 Price One pound, five shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re- election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (1st January 1944) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (Ist January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (lst January 1947) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (1st January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (Ist January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cahrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Honorary Secretary and Managing Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. : Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust Secretariat of the Commission : 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, ~ N.W.1 Offices of the Trust : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 — oe eS ties Hay, at BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 2, Parts 6/8 (pp. 161-240) 4th May 1951 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY 1. The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool.. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications pub- lished in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” Norice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publica- tion in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Triple Part (vol 2, Triple Part 6/8) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so, in writing, to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and in any case in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases Norice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in applications published in the present Triple Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature - in relation to the following names :— (1) Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed validation of, by suppression of Sphacroceras Hope, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (Z.N.(S.)405) (2) Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(S.)403) (3) Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, proposed designation of type species of ; Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813, proposed determina- tion of species to which name applicable (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Z.N.(S.)401) (4) Pactonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, proposed designation of type species of; trivial name cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites cymodoce), (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed suppression of (Z.N.(S.)421) 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (5) Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am- monoidea), proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(S.)384) (6) Kosmoceras Waagen, 1869, Harpoceras Waagen, 1869, and Peri- sphinctes Waagen, 1869 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(S.)445) (7) Planites de Haan, 1825, proposed suppression of ; Nautilus poly- gyratus Reinecke, 1818 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), determination of species to which name applicable (Z.N.(S.)402) (8) Planulites Lamarck, 1801, Orbulites Lamarck, 1801, Pelagus Montfort, 1808, Ellipsolithes Montfort, 1808, Globites de Haan, 1825 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed suppression of (Z.N.(S.) 423) (9) Ammonites Brugwmeére, 1789 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed suppression of (Z.N.(S.)425) (10) angulatus Schlotheim, 1820 (as published in the binominal com- bination Ammonites angulatus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am- monoidea), proposed validation of, and determination of species to which name applicable (Z.N.(S.)422) (11) Toxosphinctes Buckman, 1923 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am- monoidea), proposed suppression of (in favour of Arisphinctes Buck- man, 1924) (Z.N.(S.)389) : (12) Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(S.)509) (13) Liparoceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(S.)507) (14) Normannites Munier-Chalmas, 1892 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of type species of (Z.N.(8.)508) (15) virgula Deshayes, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea virgula) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed validation of (Z.N.(8.)407) (16) asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten asper) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed validation of (Z.N.(8.)408) (17) Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed suppression of, and validation of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819 (Z.N.(8.)365) 2. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 56), corresponding Notices have been sent to the journals “ Nature ” and “ Science.” FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpvon, N.W.1, England. 24th April 1951. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . 163 INTRODUCTORY NOTE ON APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IN REGARD TO THE NAMES OF CERTAIN JURASSIC AMMONITES By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Note dated 30th March 1951) The following applications to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature arise out of preparations for the section on Jurassic ammonites for the international Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Some of the nomenclatorial problems dealt with are of long standing and have often been discussed in print, but no one hitherto has thought it worth while to bring them before the Commission. Only by so doing can such time-wasting obstructions be cleared away. Mr. Francis Hemming has most kindly spent much time and trouble in putting the papers mto the necessary shape for the Commission and in antici- pating and avoiding a number of likely pitfalls. It is hoped that under the revised procedure of the International Com- mission decisions on these applications will be given by the end of the present year. 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME SPHAEROCERAS BAYLE,1878 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC) By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 405) 1. The generic name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 (Explic. Carte géol. France 4 (Atlas) : pls. 52, 53) has as its type species Ammonites brongmarti Sowerby (J), 1817 (Min. Conch. 2: 190), that species having been so selected by Douvillé in 1879 (Bull. Soc. géol. France (3) 7 C.R.: 91). 2. The name Sphaeroceras is widely disseminated in the literature of the Jurassic, as will be seen from the list of references given by Roman (1938, Ammonites jurass. crét.: 197). 3. Further, the genus.Spheroceras Bayle is the type species of the family SPHAEROCERATID Buckman (1920, Type Ammonites 3: 22). 4. I found however on consulting Neave’s Nomenclator zoologicus (4: 239) that the name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878, is an invalid junior homonym of the name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840 (Coleopterist’s Manual 3: 143), the name of a genus in the Order Coleoptera (Class Insecta). 5. If the generic name Sphaeroceras Hope was a name currently used by coleopterists for a genus of beetles, I should not have considered that it would have been right to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use their plenary powers to suppress that name, in order to validate the generic name Sphaeroceras Bayle in ammonites. When however I consulted Mr. C. E. Tottenham of the Zoological Museum here, I learnt that the generic name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840, was, as from the moment of its original publication, a junior synonym of the generic name Globicornis Latreille, 1829, each of these genera having the same taxonomic species as its type species. The Report kindly furnished by Mr. Tottenham is annexed to the present application as an Appendix. In the circumstances disclosed in this Report it was evident that not the slightest inconvenience of any kind would be experienced by coleopterists if the International Commission were to suppress the name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840, while that action would be of great value to students of ammonites by validating the name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878, which (as I have explained) is the name for a well-known genus of the Jurassic and forms the basis of a family name. 6. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature (1) to use their plenary powers to suppress the generic name Sphaeroceras Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165 Hope, 1840, and to validate the name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878, (2) to place the name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 (gender of generic name : neuter) (type species, by selection by Douvillé, 1879: Ammonites brongniarti Sowerby, 1817) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, (3) to place the trivial name brongniarti Sowerby, 1817 (as published in the binominal combination Ammo- nites brongniarti) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (4) to place the name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840, suppressed under (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. APPENDIX On the question whether the suppression of the name “ Sphaeroceras ” Hope, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), under the plenary powers would cause any inconvenience to coleopterists (Memorandum, dated 5th November 1949) cA By C. E. TOTTENHAM (Zoological Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) From the point of view of the coleopterist there can be no objection to a request being made to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the suppression, under the plenary ee of the generic name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840. The position is this :—Hope, 1840 (Coleopterist’s Manual 3: 143) first employed the name Sphaeroceras for a genus of beetles belonging to the family DERMESTIDAE. In doing so, he gave no generic characters but merely cited the name in a list of genera and typical species. He gave the name as a synonym of Globicornis Latreille, thus :— Genus ee 7. Globicornis Latr. . rufitarsis Pz. Sphaeroceras Hope J D. rufitarsis Pz Globicornis Latreille, 1829 (Régne anim. (ed. 2) 4: 511) is a valid name and is currently in use. The genus so named is monobasic, the only species cited by name by Latreille being Dermestes rufitarsis Panzer, 1796, which is therefore the type species of the genus Globicornis Latreille, 1829 (in Cuvier, Régne anim. (ed. 2) 4: 511). Since Globicornis Latreille, 1829, and Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840, have the q same type species, namely Dermestes rufitarsis Panzer, 1796 (Faun. Ins, 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature germ. 3 (Heft 35): No. 6) which is a synonym of Dermestes nigripes Fabricius, 1792 (Ent. syst. 1(1) : 233), Hope’s generic name Sphaeroceras was strangled at birth and can never be required. I have been able to find no mention of Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840, in the litera- ture and it is not even given as a synonym of Globicornis Latreille by Junk (1911, Coleopt. Catalogus 25, Pars 33). Since it is an unused and useless name in the Order Coleoptera, there is very good reason why this name, as published by Bayle, should be retained in its well-known sense as the name of a genus of ammonites. If the Commission decide to use their plenary powers to suppress the name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840, it would be convenient if at the same time they would add the name Globicornis Latreille, 1829 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Dermestes rufitarsis Panzer, 1796 (= Dermestes nigripes Fabricius, 1792)) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and the trivial name nigripes Fabricius, 1792 (as published in the binomina! combination Dermestes nigripes) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167 PROPOSED DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ PROCERITES ” SIEMIRADZKI, 1898 (CLASS CEPHALO- PODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC) By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)403) 1. The generic name Procerites was published by Siemiradzki (1898, Palaeontograph. 54: 78, 303). Numerous species were included in the genus, but no type species was designated or indicated. 2. One of the species originally included was cited as Ammonites procerus Seebach, 1865. This species as interpreted by Siemiradzki (i.e. Siemiradzki, 1898, nec Seebach, 1864) was selected as the type species of Procerites by Buck- man in 1914 (2: ix) and 1920 (3: 30). ; 3. De Grossouvre (1892; 1907; 1919: 385, 387) showed that Procerites procerus Seebach, as interpreted by Siemiradzki, was based on Ammonites procerus Seebach, as interpreted by Schloenbach (1865: pl. xxx, fig. 1), which (1907 : 8) he renamed Procerites schloenbachi de Grossouvre, pointing out that it was generically different from A. procerus Seebach. 4. According to the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948, it is necessary to assume that the original author of a genus correctly identified the nominal species referred by him thereto but where there are grounds for considering that the original author of a genus mis- identified the species selected as the type species of the genus by a later author the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, if satisfied that the species in question was so misidentified, is, under its plenary powers, to designate as the type species of the genus concerned, either (a) the species intended by the original author when citing the name of the erroneously determined species or (5), if the identity of that species is doubtful, a species in harmony with current nomenclatorial practice (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 158-159). Further, an author selecting a type species of a previously established genus is to be assumed to have correctly identified the species so selected (1950, did. 4: 157-158). It follows therefore (1) that, as matters now stand, Siemiradzki is to be assumed to have correctly identified Ammonites procerus Seebach, 1865, when he cited that species as one of the species then included by him in the genus Procerites, and (2) that Buckman (1914) is to be assumed to have correctly identified that species when he selected it as the type species of the above genus. In the present case it is perfectly clear that such assumptions are not justified, for (a) it is certain that Siemeradzki did misidentify the species to which Le 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature applied the name Ammonites procerus Seebach, and (b) Buckman, in selecting the type species for Procerites, expressly stated that the species so selected was not the true Ammonites procerus of Seebach but the species misidentified there- with by Siemeradzki. It is for this reason that the Commission is now asked to rectify the position under its plenary powers. 5. At my request Professor Hermann Schmidt has searched in Gottingen Museum for the type specimen of A. procerus Seebach and has found it and sent it to me on loan. It is a nucleus, difficult to interpret with certainty. In my opinion de Grossouvre (1919) was correct in referring it to the genus Siemiradzkia Hyatt, 1900. Therefore if A. procerus Seebach were to be recog- nised as type species of Procerites, the usage of half a century would be over- turned and that generic name would have to replace Siemiradzkia Hyatt, 1900, a well-known and widely-distributed genus, which is now regarded as belonging to a different sub-family (PSEUDOPERISPHINCTIN®, whereas Procerites as hitherto understood belongs to zIGZAGICERATINA). 6. When the present application had been in the hands of the International Commission for over a year, the subgenus Euprocerites Wetzel (1950: 76) was proposed with type species by original designation Procerites schloenbachi de Grossouvre, “ because a subgenus Procerites (sensu stricto) as fixed by Buckman is not admissible according to the Rules of Nomenclature”. Incidentally Wetzel gives no indication of how Procerites (sensu stricto) should be under- stood, for he mentions no type species, and he assigns 4. procerus Seebach to the subgenus Phanerosphinctes Buckman, 1921. This genus is based on a nucleus which is too small to be interpreted with certainty, but which is not congeneric with either A. procerus Seebach or Procerites schloenbachi de Gros- souvre, and comes from older beds ; Phanerosphinctes is probably a synonym of Vermisphinctes Buckman, 1920. 7. Wetzel’s new subgenus Huprocerites cannot, however, stand under the Regles. He assigns to Euprocerites Wetzel, 1950, the species Parkinsonites fullonicus Buckman, 1922, which is type species by original designation of Parkinsonites Buckman, 1922. Parkinsonites fullonicus is certainly congeneric with Procerites scholoenbachi de Grossouvre and is a closely allied species. If the name Procerites were to be rejected for the subgenus containing the species P. fullonicus Buckman, Parkinsonites would become the valid name and Euprocerites on Wetzel’s own showing would fall as a synonym. 8. In order to provide a legal basis for the universal usage of the last half century and to avoid the revolutionary changes and consequent confusion in the nomenclature of the Bathonian PERISPHINCTID# which the strict application of the Reégles would involve, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to use its plenary powers to secure that the type species of the genus Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898, shall be the species hitherto accepted assuch. The specific action requested is that the Commission should :— (1) use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all selections of the type species of the genus Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898, hitherto made, and (6) to ; : : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169 designate Procerites schloenbachi de Grossouvre, 1907, as the type species of this genus ; (2) place the undermentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898 (gender of generic name: masculine) (type species, designated under the plenary powers: Procerites schloenbacht de Grossouvre, 1907, VI® Congrés Assoc. Franc- Comtoise, Vesoul: 8) ; Siemrradzkva Hyatt, 1900 (in Eastman—Zittel, Text-Book Palwont. 1: 582) (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species by original designation: Ammonites aurigerus Oppel, 1856, Wiirttemb. naturw. Jahreshefle 13 : 167) ; (3) place the name Huprocerites Wetzel, 1950 (an objective synonym of Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898, as proposed to be defined under (1)(d) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : schloenbachi de Grossouvre, 1907 (as published in the binominal combination Procerites schloenbacht) ; aurigera Oppel, 1856 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites aurigera). References : Buckman, 8. 8., 1909-30. “ Yorkshire Type Ammonites ”’. Grossouvre, A. de., 1892.‘ Observations sur l Ammonites procerus auct.”’ Bull. Soc. Géol. France (3) 20: xii. Grossouvre, A. de., 1907. “ Sur la variabilité de l’espéce chez les ammonites.” VI° Congres de ? Assoc. Franc-Comtorse, Vesoul, 1 Aug. 1906. Grossouvre, A. de., 1919. ‘ Bajocien-Bathonien dans la Niévre.” Bull. Soc. Géol. France (4) 18 : 337. Schloenbach, Uy 1865. “ Beitrage zur Paliontologie der Jura-und Kreide- Formation...” Palacontographica 13: 1. Seebach, K. von., 1864. ‘‘ Der Hannoversche Jura ”’, Hannover. 4 _ Siemiradzki, J. von., 1898. “ Monographische Beschreibung der Ammoniten- gattung Perisphinctes”’, Part 1, Palaeonlographica 54: 69. _~ Wetzel, W., 1950.‘ Fauna und Stratigraphie der Wuerttembergica-Schichten insbesondere Norddeutschlands ”, Palacontographica 99A: 63. 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ MACROCEPHALITES ” ZITTEL, 1884, AND OF THE TYPE SPECIMEN OF “AMMONITES MACROCEPHALUS” SCHLOTHEIM, 1813 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 401) A. The type species of Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 1. The genus Macrocephalites (Sutner MS.) Zittel (1884, Handb. Pal. 1 (Abt. 2) (3): 470, fig. 655) was based on Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, A. tumidus (Reinecke), A. herveyi Sowerby, A. keppleri Oppel, A. arenosus Waagen, A. elephantinus Waagen (t.e. six syntype species). 2. Only one of these species was figured by Zittel (loc. cit.: Fig. 655), namely Macrocephalites macrocephalus (Schloth.). He gave a good figure, easily recognisable. This fact and the virtual tautonomy would suggest that he regarded A. macrocephalus as the type species. 3. But Blake (1905: 38-45), the first to monograph the genus, pointed out that Zittel’s figure is widely different from Am. macrocephalus Schlothemm (1813), of which the sole type is the figure in Baier (1757, pl. xii, fig. 8) which Blake (1905: 43) reproduced in his monograph. 4. Blake did not select a type species for this genus, but he assigned the M. macrocephalus of Zittel’s fig. 655 to a new species, M. iypicus Blake, which he placed first of the five species of Macrocephalites that he described, M. macro- cephalus Schloth.being placed second. Blake called his new species “‘ Macro- cephalites typicus nom. nov.”’, implying that the type specimen should be the A. macrocephalus of either Zittel, d’Orbigny or Nikitin which he placed in ne synonymy; but the first line of his text begins “ Type (pl. ui, fig. 1)”, Scarborough specimen in the Sedgwick Museum. This specimen is ticks presumably the holotype. It does not belong to the same species as A. macro- cephalus Zittel and belongs to a different subgenus (Dolikephalites Buckman). 5. 8. S. Buckman (1922, Type Ammonites 4: pls. ecexxxiv, A, B) obtained from the Palaeontogical Museum of Munich, and refigured photo- graphically, the original specimen on which Zittel’s figure of 1884 was based (a specimen cited by Oppel, from the basal Callovian of Ehningen). He named it ‘‘ Macrocephalites verus nov., Holotype ”, and printed on the plate “ Maero- cephalites macrocephalus Zittel, 1884, Genotype, Handb. Pal. 1: 470, fig. 655.” i a er Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171 6. The Commission are now asked to declare under the plenary powers that the type species of Macrocephalites is M. verus Buckman by deliberate subsequent selection, in spite of misuse of the word genotype for a specimen. B. The type specimen of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim 7. Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim (1813: 70) was neither figured nor described. It was based solely on a drawing in Baier (1757, pl. xu, fig. 8), which has been reproduced by Blake (1905: 43, fig. 3). 8. Baier’s figure falls very far short of what is required by modern standards, but according to Blake (1905 : 39) “‘ it is seen at once that the species represented is that now called A. tumidus after Reinecke (1818). This is supported by Schlotheim’s himself in a later work (1820: 70) putting Nautilus tumidus Reinecke in synonymy with A. macrocephalus. Both came from the Callovian of Franconia. 9. Unfortunately there are complications. Not only has Baier’s figure been almost universally ignored, both before and after Blake’s monograph, and A. macrocephalus interpreted in many different ways, but “ A. macrocephalus ”’ has become an important zonal index fossil. The Macrocephalus Zone is world-wide and entrenched in the stratigraphical and geological literature of a century. 10. Thanks largely to the wide influence of Zittel’s text-book, his inter- pretation of A. macrocephalus (i.e.=M. verus Buckman) has been by far the most commonly accepted and is in the minds of stratigraphers when they speak of the Macrocephalus Zone. Spath (1928: 169) attempted to stabilise this position by pinning the name macrocephalus to M. verus Buckman, although he regarded it as generically distinct from M. tumidus (Reinecke). Spath wrote “it does not seem advisable now to go back with Blake (1905: 43) to Baier’s unrecognisable illustration, the original of which is lost.” In 1933 I followed Spath and in my series of photographs of the chief Jurassic zonal indices I figured an English specimen of M. verus Buckman in illustration of Macrocephalites macrocephalus (Schloth.) (Arkell, 1933: 608, pl. xxxv, fig. 1). 11. Oppel (1856-8 : 547), founder of the Macrocephalus Zone, based his interpretation on figures by Zieten (1830) and d’Orbigny (1846), the former M. verus Buckman, the latter M. typicus Blake, and he described A. tumidus (Reinecke) as a separate species. One of Oppel’s own specimens (cited 1856-8 : 547) was that which Zittel figured and Buckman refigured as the holotype of M. verus. 12. Progress in knowledge of stratigraphy has proved that M. twmidus (Reinecke) does not occur in what has always been called the Macrocephalus Zone in this country, but in the next higher zone, the Koenigi Zone. Hence, if M. macrocephalus Sehlotheim be interpreted by Baier’s figure and M. tumidus (Reinecke), M. macrocephalus will become a species which does not occur in the Macrocephalus Zone. This will inevitably cause much confusion in geology. 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13. The Commission is now asked to use its plenary powers to designate the specimen which is to be accepted as the type specimen of Macrocephalites macrocephalus (Schlotheim). I recommend that, in order to avoid the con- fusion referred to in the preceding paragraph, the specimen to be so designated ‘should be the specimen which is the holotype of Macrocephalites verus Buckman, 1922 (=the specimen figured by Zittel in 1884 as Macrocephalites macrocephalus (Schlotheim)). By this procedure, M. macrocephalus would remain index fossil of the Macrocephalus Zone. References : Arkell, W. J., 1933. ‘The Jurassic System in Great Britain” (Oxford). Baier, F. J., 1757. “‘ Joannis Jacobi Baieri Monumenta Rerum Petrificatarum Praecipia Orictographiae Noricae .”” (Niiremburg). Blake, J. F., 1905-7. ‘A monograph of the fauna of the Cornbrash.” Palaeontographical Soc. Buckman,.S. 8., 1909-30. ‘‘ Type Ammonites.” (London). Oppel, A., 1856-58. “‘ Die Juraformation.” (Stuttgart). Reinecke, I. C. M., 1818. “ Maris protogezi Nautilos et Argonautas.”’ (Coburg) Schlotheim, E. F. von., 1813. ‘‘ Beitriige zur Naturgeschichte der Versteine- rungen in geognostischer Hinsicht”’, in C. G. Leonhard Taschenbuch fiir die gesamte Mineralogie 7: 3. (Frankfurt). Schlotheim, E. F. von., 1820. ‘‘ Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte.”’ : Spath, L. F., 1928. “ Revision of the Jurassic cephalopod fauna of Kachh (Cutch), part 3’ Pal. indica (N.S.) 9, mem. 2. Zittel, K. A., 1884. “ Handbuch der Palaeontologie ” 1, pt. 2. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173 DR. W. J. ARKELL’S APPLICATION TO THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CLATURE FOR RULINGS (a) ON THE QUESTION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF “ MACROCEPHALITES ” ZITTEL, 1884, AND (b) ON THE QUESTION OF THE TYPE SPECIMEN OF “AMMONITES MACROCEPHALUS ” SCHOLTHEIM, 1813 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)401) 1. Dr. W. J. Arkell has submitted to the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature an application in which he asks for.a ruling both as to the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 (Handb. Pal. 1 (Abt. 2} (3): 470 and as to the specimen to be accepted as the type specimen of the nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (Tasch. Min.: 70). The two subjects are nomenclatorially quite distinct from one another but Dr. Arkell has united his proposals in regard thereto in a single application because his proposals in regard to the second subject have a direct bearing on the action which he mS the Commission to take as regards the first subject. 2. Identity of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813: Dr. Arkell points out that the nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813, is based exclu- sively upon a drawing reproduced as fig. 8 on plate 12 of Baier’s J. J. Baiert Monumenta Rerum Petrificatarum published in 1757. This, Dr. Arkell explains, is a poor figure by modern standards but has been identified by Blake (1905, Monogr. Fauna Cornbrash: 39) as the species “ now called A. tumidus after Reinecke (1818). After drawing attention to the fact that the trivial name macrocephalus of the species here under consideration has given its name to the Macrocephalus Zone, Dr. Arkell points out the species identified by Blake (i.e. Nautilus tumidus Reinecke) as that represented by fig. 8 on Baier’s plate 12 (i.e. the holotype of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim) does not occur in the Macrocephalus Zone in this country, being confined to the next higher zone, the Koenigi Zone. Dr. Arkell goes on to observe that Baier’s figure—and therefore also Blake’s interpretation of it—have been widely ignored by stratigraphers and that the Macrocephalus Zone, which is “ world-wide and entrenched in the stratigraphical and geological literature of a century ’’, and the species which “ is by far the most commonly accepted and is in the minds of stratigraphers when they speak of the Macrocephalus Zone ”’ is the species to which Buckman in 1922 (Type Ammonites 4: pl. 334 figs. A, B) gave the name Macrocephalites verus. This nominal species, Dr. Arkell adds, has at its holo- type the specimen cited by Oppel from the basal Callovian of Ehningen which Zittel erroneously figured in 1884 (loc. cit. 1 (Abt. 2) (3): fig. 655) under the hame Macrocephalites macrocephalus (Schlotheim). 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3. Dr. Arkell suggests that, in order to ensure that the species bearing the trivial name macrocephalus (i.e. the species represented by the nominal species Ammonities macrocephalus Schlotheim) shall be the species commonly accepted as the index fossil of the Macrocephalus Zone, the Commission should direct that the specimen to be accepted as the type specimen of this species shall be the specimen which is also the holotype of Macrocephalites verus Buckman, 1922 (i.e. the specimen erroneously figured by Zittel in 1884 as Macrocephalites macrocephalus (Schlotheimm). In the form in which it is actually submitted, Dr. Arkell’s proposal would involve the designation by the Commission (under its plenary powers) of a particular specimen to be the neotype of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813. At the present time, it would be difficult for the Commission to take such a course, for, as the result of a decision taken in Paris in 1948 by the Commission, with the approval of the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, the whole question whether neotypes should be recognised in the Régles as a category of type specimen is at present sub judice, until a final decision is taken on this question by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting to be held at Copenhagen in 1953 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 191-193). Fortunately, it is within the power of the Commission to secure the ends which Dr. Arkell has in view, without recourse to the creation of a neotype. A case of exactly this kind is provided by the trivial name iris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio iris) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) dealt with by the Commission in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 540-542). In that case (as in the present case) a given trivial name (the trivial name iris Linnaeus, 1758) had been universally used in one sense but, as had been ascertained, the type specimen belonged to an entirely distinct, though closely allied species. The problem so presented was solved by the decision of the Commission to use their plenary powers “to direct that the trivial name wis Linnaeus, 1758 . . . should be applied to the species figured as Apatura iris by South (R.), 1906, The Butter- flies of the British Isles as figure 1 on plate 29...” An exactly similar result could be secured in the present case if the Commission were to use the plenary powers to direct that the trivial name macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites macrocephalus) should be applied to the species figured by Buckman (S8.8.), 1922, Type Ammonites as figs. A and B on plate 334 of volume 4 of that work. 4. The type species of the nominal genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884. The nominal genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, was established without a designated or indicated type species and with six nominal species as syntypes, one of these being Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813. Dr. Arkell points out that the figure (fig. 655) given by Zittel for the above species did not, in fact, represent a specimen of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim but was (as pointed out by Blake (1905: 38-45)) a distinct species; the species in question was the species to which in 1922 Buckman applied the name Macro- cephalites verus. This species was selected (though, as Dr. Arkell points out, in an irregular manner) as the type species of Macrocephalites Zittel by Buckman in 1922 (on the legend to his plate 334). This action, which was in thorough accord with what were no doubt Zittel’s intentions when he chose the virtually tautonymous name Macrocephalites for the genus to which he referred the nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, has been generally a a ee ae, ———— —&XxOO—€—— SS C!LUCUCUmU Pape Pe al [a wri ce = Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175 followed by later workers. From this standpoint therefore the nominal genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, is a genus based upon a misidentified type species, the species which Zittel had in mind when placing in this genus the nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim (as based on Baier’s pl. 12, fig. 8) being not that species but the species later named Macrocephalites verus Buck- man, 1922. 5. The duties of the Commission, when dealing with genera based upon misidentified type species, were defined by the Thirteenth International Con- gress of Zoology and incorporated in the Reégles in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 158-159). What the Congress then decided was (1) that the original author of a genus is to be assumed correctly to have identified the species referred to that genus, (2) that, where there is evidence that the author of a genus misidentified one of the species included by him in his new genus and that species was either designated by him, or selected by a later author, as the type species of the genus concerned, the Commission, if satisfied that such a mis- identification has occurred, is to use its plenary powers “to designate as the type species of the genus concerned, either (a) the species intended by the original author when citing the name of the erroneously determined species or (b) if the identity of that species is doubtful, a species in harmony with current nomenclatorial usage, save that, where the Commission is of the opinion that greater confusion than uniformity would result from so doing, it is to direct that the designation or indication or, as the case may be, the selection as the type species of the genus concerned of the nominal species cited by the original author of the genus is to be accepted.” 6. Having now established precisely the duties imposed on the Com- mission by the Congress in relation to this class of case, we find no difficulty, on the basis of the data furnished by Dr. Arkell, in determining the action which is called for. Those data show that the currently accepted concept of the genus Macrocephalites Zittel is based on the assumption that the type species of this genus is the species erroneously figured by Zittel (fig. 655) as Macrocephalites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813. In other words the species commonly accepted as the type species of this genus is the nominal species Macrocephalites verus Buckman, 1922, the holotype of which is actually the same specimen as that figured by Zittel as Macrocephalites macrocephalus Schlotheim. Accordingly, if no other factors were involved, the required solution would be the use by the Commission of its plenary powers to designate Macrocephalites verus Buckman, 1922, as the type species of the genus Macro- cephalites Zittel. 7. It is at this point, however, that the other portion of the application submitted by Dr. Arkell becomes immediately relevant, for, although he wants the type species of the genus Macrocephalites Zittel to be the species to which Buckman in 1922 gave the name Macrocephalites verus, he asks also that the Commission should use its plenary powers to direct that the holotype of Macrocephalites verus Buckman, 1922, be accepted as the holotype of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813. The adoption by the Commission of this latter proposal would both clearly define the identity of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim and 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature also make the trivial name verus Buckman, 1922 (as published in the binominal combination Macrocephalites verus) an objective synonym of the trivial name macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites macrocephalus), since in that event each of these nominal species would be based upon the same type specimen. Once the identity of Am- monites macrocephalus Schlotheim had been determined in this way, there would be no longer any need to designate, as the type species of Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, some species different from Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, for the taxonomic species which under the plenary powers would then be the species represented by Schlotheim’s macrocephalus would be also the species which it is desired should be the type species of Macrocephalites Zittel. In those circumstances there would then be no need to use the plenary powers in relation to the type species of the genus Macrocephalites. For quite another reason however the use of those powers is desirable in this particular case, namely, in order to remove any doubts as to whether Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim is in-fact the type species, under the Regles, of Macrocephalites Zittel, having regard to the (as Dr. Arkell points out) admittedly defective nature of the type selection made by Buckman in 1922. 8. Form of action recommended to give effect to the purposes set forth in the application submitted by Dr. Arkell : Having now reviewed the problem sub- mitted by Dr. Arkell in fe light of the relevant decisions taken by the Congress in regard to the procedure to be followed in dealing with nominal genera based on misidentified type species and also the precedent in regard to the deter- mination of the identity of the taxonomic species represented by a given neniinal species afforded by decisions taken by the Commission in comparable cases, we may summarise as follows the action by the Commission which (as Dr. Arkell agrees in litt. 26th August 1950) would be necessary to give effect to the purposes which his application is designed to serve, namely that the Commission should :— (1) use its plenary powers :— (a) to direct that the trivial name macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites macro- cephalus) should be applied to the species figured by Buckman (S.8.) in 1922, Type Ammonites, Vol. 4, as figures A and B on sa 334 (the holotype of Macrocephalites verus Buckman, 922) ; (b) to set aside all type selections for the genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, made prior to the decision now proposed to be taken and, having done so, to designate as the type species of that genus the nominal species Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, determined as in (a) above ; (2) place the generic name Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 (gender of generic name : masculine), with the type species designated in (1)(h) above on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177 (3) place the trivial name macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites macrocephalus), determined as specified in (1)(a) above, on the Official List of Specifie Trivial Names in Zoology ; (4) place the trivial name verus Buckman, 1922 (as published in the binominal combination Macrocephalites verus) (an invalid objective synonym of the trivial name macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813, as defined in (1)(a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF “PICTONIA” BAYLE, 1878, AND “RASENIA” SALFELD, 1913 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC) By W. J. ARKELL, M-A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 421) 1. The generic name Pictonia Bayle, 1878 (: pl. lxvi) was published in explana- tion of a plate only, with the legend “ Pictonia cymodoce d’Orbigny.” The figure so referred to showed accurately a species differing from Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850 (: pl. 202). The text of Bayle’s work was never published. The species so figured by Bayle was named Pictonia baylei by Salfeld in 1913 (: 423). 2. Salfeld (1917: 73) selected Pictonia baylei Salfeld, 1913, as the type species of the genus Pictonia Bayle, and this selection has heen generally followed by subsequent workers. Under the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948, when incorporating in the Reégles the substance of Opinion 168, the type species of Pictonia is the nominal species Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850, whatever that species may be, unless the Commission uses its plenary powers to designate some other species as the type species (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 158-159). The nominal species Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny was based by its author on two syntypes, of which one, ie larger, he figured as figs. 1 and 2 on his plate 202, while the other (i.e. the smaller syntype) he figured as figs. 3 and 4 on the same plate. Tornquist (1896: 8) recognised that these two syntypes were not conspecific. He thereupon selected the smaller one (i.e. d’Orbigny’s figs. 3 and 4) as the lectotype of Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, at the same time making d’Orbigny’s larger syntype (figured by d’Orbigny as figs. 1 and 2 on plate 202) the holotype of a new nominal species to which he gave the name Pictonia orbignyt. Thus, under the Régles, the type species of the genus Pictonia Bayle is the species figured by d’Orbigny in his figs. 3 and 4 on plate 202. 3. Lemoine (1904: no. 55) re-figured what he claimed to be d’Orbigny’s syntypes of Ammonites cymodoce. The larger specimen is clearly the one represented in d’Orbigny’s larger figures, figs. 1 and 2 (the type specimen of Pictonia orbignyi Tornquist), but the smaller specimen figured by Lemoine differs in many respects from d’Orbigny’s smaller figures, figs. 3 and 4 (Jectotype of cymodoce) and it seems very doubtful whether the specimen has been cor- rectly identified (see Arkell, 1935: 250). The species A. cymodoce d’Orbigny therefore rests on insecure foundations and is unsuitable as the type species of — a genus. Bulletin of Zeological Nomenclature 179 4. In 1913 Salfeld (1913: 249) founded the genus Rasenia, with type species by original designation A. cymodoce d’Orbigny, as represented by the larger figures only (figs. 1 and 2). But under the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948, referred to in paragraph 2, the type species of Rasenia is the nominal species A. cymodoce d’Orbigny, which by Tornquist’s selection of 1896 (see paragraph 2 above) was fixed on d’Orbigny’s figs. 3 and 4. Moreover, the specimen represented in d’Orbigny’s figs. 1 and 2 was already the holoty pe of Pictonia oo yt Tornquist, 1896 (see para. 2 above). 5. From Salfeld’s writings it seems certain that his designation of d’Orbigny’s figs. | and 2 as representing the type species of Rasenia was a slip, for his use of the genus Rasenia shows clearly that what he had in mind was d’Orbigny’s figs.3—4 (i.e., the lectotype specimen of A. cymodoce), not figs. 1 and 2, which he would have called Pictonia orbignyt Tornquist; and he says of Rasena “ Another characteristic species is Ammonites uralensis d’Orbigny * (1845), ~ which closely resembles d’Orbigny’s (1850) figs. 3 and 4 but not figs. 1 and 2. 6. So apparent is Salfeld’s imtention in all his writings that the latest monographer (Schneid, 1940 : 79) has asserted that Salfeld did select d’Orbigny’s figs. 3-4 as representing the type species of Rasena. Unfortunately it requires more than this assertion to correct Salfeld’s error. 7. As the Rules stand, therefore, A. cymodoce d’Orbigny (1850, figs. 3-4) is type species of both Pictonia Bayle, 1878; and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913. Since the type specimen is doubtful, this species is unsuitable to be type species of any genus (see paragraph 3 above), and the Commission is now asked to designate new type species for both genera. 8. The obvious type species for Pictonia is the one already widely accepted as such, namely, Pictonia baylei Salfeld. A suitable type species for Rasenia is less obvious. A. wralensis d’Orbigny (1845 : 429, pl. xxxii) would be suitable, but that the smaller, young, individual in d’Orbigny’s figs. 8 and 9 has been selected as lectotype of this species by R. Douvillé (1911, n. 210) and it is so small that it leaves the nature of the species in doubt. In view of this the best choice is another species assigned by Salfeld himself to Rasenia, though not published until much later: namely, Rasenia involuta (Salfeld MS.) in Spath (1935: 48, pl. 10, figs. 5a, 5b). This is close to the larger figured example of A. wralensis d’Orb. (1845, figs. 6-7) and has the advantage of having come from the brickpits in the Lower Kimeridge Clay of Market Rasen, Lincoln- _ shire, after which the genus was named Rasenia. 9. I therefore recommend that. in order to avoid the confusion which otherwise is inevitable, the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- | clature should use their plenary powers to set aside all existing type designations or type selections for the umder-mentioned genera and to designate as their respective type species the species specified below :— Pictonia Bayle, 1878: type species to be Pictonia baylei Salfeld, 1913 (based on Bayle, 1878 : pl. lxvi), from the lower Kimeridgian of Normandy) (gender of generic name : feminine). 18D: |< Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Rasenia Salfeld, 1913: type species to be Rasenra involuta (Salfeld MS.) Spath (1935: 48, pl. 10, figs. 5a, 5b), from the Lower Kimeridge Clay of Market Rasen, Lincolnshire) (gender of generic name : feminine). 10. Consequential upon the adoption of the foregoimg recommendation, the Commission are asked to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic names Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, and on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial names baylei Salfeld, 1913 (as published in the binominal combination Pictonia baylei) and involuta (Salfeld MS.) Spath, 1935 ) (as published in the binominal combination Rasenia wvoluta). References: Arkell, W. J., 1935. “ On the Lower Kimeridgian ammonite genera Pictoma, Rasenia, Aulacostephanus, and Ataxioceras. Geol. Mag., 72: 246. Bayle, E., 1878. Explic. Carte Géol. France, 4: Atlas. Douvillé, R., 1911. Palaeontologia Universalis. Lemoine, E., 1904. ibid. Orbigny, A. d’, 1845, Géologie de Ja Russie d’ Europe. Orbigny, A. d’, 1850. Paléontologie Frangaise, Terrains Jurassiques, Céphalo- podes. Salfeld, H., 1913. ‘Certain Upper Jurassic Strata of England. * Quart. J. geol. Soc., Lond. 69: 423. Salfeld, H., 1917. ‘‘ Monographie der Gattung Ringsteadia.” Palaeonto- — graphica \xii, 62: 69. Schneid, T., 1940. “Uber Raseniiden, Ringsteadiiden und Pictoniiden des nordlichen Frankenjura.”’ Palaeontographica 91: 79 Spath, L. F., 1935. “ The Upper Jurassic invertebrate faunas of Cape Leslie, Milne Land, 1 Oxfordian and Lower Kimmeridgian.”’ Meddelelser om Gromland, 99, n. 2. Tornquist, A., 1896. “Die degenerierten Perisphinctiden des Kimmeridge von Le Havre.” Mém. Soc. pal. Suisse, 33: 1. : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 18] ON THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE DETERMINA- TION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENERA _ “PICTONIA” BAYLE, 1878, AND “ RASENIA” SALFELD, 1913 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE BY DR. W. J. ARKELL By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)421) 1. The case of the generic names Pictoma Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, submitted to the Commission by Dr. W. J. Arkell, is one of peculiar complexity, owing to the facts that, as specialists are agreed, (1) the nominal genus Pictonia Bayle was based upon a misidentified type species, (2) the type species of Rasenia Salfeld was cited by the author of that name in a misleading manner, and (3) the nominal species which (as shown below) is, under the _ Regles the type species of both genera is a species which, when its name was first published, was a composite species, the division of which, under Article 31, has proved a matter of difficulty. Passing from the nomenclatorial aspects of this case to the taxonomic aspects, as laid before the Commission, we shall find that the strict application of the Regles to these generic names would have the effect (i) of transferring to the genus Pictonia the species at present referred to _ the genus Rasenia, (ii) of making Rasenia an objective synomym of Pictonia, and (iii) of making it necessary to find some new generic name for the species at present placed in the genus Rasenia. It is Dr. Arkell’s object to prevent the serious confusion to which the foregoing changes would give rise, by enlisting the help of the Commission through the use of its plenary powers. In order to grasp the nomenclatorial implications of this difficult case, I have found it necessary for my own purposes to prepare the present analysis of the data _ submitted as a preliminary to considering exactly what action by the Com- mission would be necessary to secure the ends sought by Dr. Arkell. _ The type species, under the “ Régles ”, of the nominal genera “ Pictonia ” Bayle, 1878, and “‘ Rasenia”’ Salfeld, 1913 . 2. Type species of Pictonia Bayle, 1878: The generic name Pictonia was first published in 1878 by Bayle in volume 4 of the Atlas to his Géologie de France ; it there appeared in the explanation to plate Ixvi in the form of the _ following legend : ‘‘ Pictonia cymodoce d’Orbigny.” No explanatory text was ever published by Bayle. From the standpoint of nomenclature the nominal _ genus Pictonia Bayle, 1878, has, as its type species by monotypy, the species: _ Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850, whatever that species may be. (It may here be noted that, until the meeting of the Thirteenth Internationa] Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948 it had never been made clear authoritatively Whether a generic name published in this way on the legend of a plate could 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature properly be regarded as having been published with an indication for the purposes of Article 25 or whether a name so published ought, under the Regles, to be regarded as a nomen nudum. At the foregoing Congress consideration of ~ this question was given in connection with an application submitted, as a test case, by Dr. Harald A. Rehder (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) regarding the status of the generic name Hrycina Lamarck, 1801; it was then decided that words should be inserted in the Regles “to make it clear that a generic name published prior to lst January 1931, on a legend to a plate or plates but without explanatory matter is to be treated as having been published with an “indication”’ for the purposes of Article 25” (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 255). Accordingly, any doubts which formerly may have existed regarding the availablity of the generic name Pictonia as from the time when it was first published by Bayle in 1878 have now been set at rest:) 3. Type species of Rasenia Salfeld, 1913: The generic name Rasenia was first published by Salfeld in 1913 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. 69 : 423). He designated, as the type species of this genus, Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850. That species, whatever it may be, is therefore the type species of this genus. In making this type designation, Salfeld noted that he regarded figs. 1 and 2 on plate 202 of d’Orbigny’s work as representing the true Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny ; he presumably added this note, because he was aware that (as pointed out by Tornquist (1896)) (paragraph 6 below) d’Orbigny’s nominal species Ammonites cymodoce, when first established, was a composite nominal species and he wished therefore to indicate that, in referring to that species, he (Salfeld) had in mind the species represented by d’Orbigny’s figs. 1 and 2 and not that represented by that author’s figs. 3 and 4. In this connection we have to pay special heed to the action taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948, when it incorporated into the Régles in a clarified and expanded form the rulings on the subject of the type species of genera established with misidentified type species previously given by the Commission in their Opinions 65 and 168. It will be noted that in their amended form the Reégles provide that an author who publishes a name for a genus is to be assumed “ to have identified correctly the nominal species referred by him to the genus so named and therefore that, where . . . the original author himself designates or indicates . . . one of the originally included nominal species to be the type species of the genus, the designation . . . so made, is not to be rejected on the ground that the original author of the generic name misidentified some other nominal species with that nominal species ” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 158). It is perfectly clear therefore that, under the Régles, the type species of Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, is Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850, by original designation. The present case is however complicated by the fact that Salfeld, when citing the name Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, added that he identified that species with figs. 1 and 2 given by d’Orbigny on his plate 202, whereas it is clear, as — Dr. Arkell points out, from other observations made by Salfeld that he intended to refer not to the foregoing figures but to d’Orbigny’s figs. 3 and 4 (which had been made the lectotype of Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny by Tornquist in 1896 (see table in paragraph 6, p. 184)). This note by Salfeld has led to the conclusion by some workers that the species represented by d’Orbigny’s figs. | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 1 and 2 must (contrary to Salfeld’s intention) be accepted as the type species of Rasenia, but, as will be seen from the decision by the Congress quoted above, this is not so, for the type species of a genus must be the species represented by the nominal species designated as the type species, in the present case, Ammonites cymodoce d’ Orbigny, 1850, the lectotype of which (as already stated) is the species represented not by d’Orbigny’s figs. 1 and 2 but that represented by his figs. 3 and 4. Thus, in fact, Salfeld’s action constitutes, under the Reégles, a valid designation, as the type species of Rasenia, of the species which he _ intended to designate (i.e. the species represented by d’Orbigny’s figs. 3 and 4), notwithstanding the fact that the note which he added, by some slip of the pen, implied that he intended to designate, as the type species of this genus, the species represented by d’Orbigny’s figs. 1 and 2. 4. Nomenclatorial relationship of the nominal genera Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, with one another : In the preceding paragraphs, we have seen that the type species of Pictonia Bayle, 1878, is, under the Régles, the nominal species Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850 (paragraph 2) and that the same nominal species is the type species of Rasenia Salfeld, 1913. Thus, under the Régles, the generic name Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, is a synonym of Pictonia Bayle, 1878 (the nominal genera, so named, having the same nominal species as their respective type species). Under a strict application of the Reégles, the generic name Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, is an invalid name and disappears from the literature, unless the Commission confers availability upon it by varying its type species under the plenary powers. The identity of the nominal species ““ Ammonites cymodoce ” d’Orbigny, 5. Having ascertained that, under the Reégles, the nominal species Am- monites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850, is the type species both of Pictonia Bayle, _ 1878, and of Rasena Salfeld, 1913, we have now to consider the question, partly nomenclatorial and partly taxonomic, of the identity of the species to which under the Régles the specific name Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850, properly apphes. The nomenclatorial procedure for determining the type specimen of a nominal species or the figure or description which exclusively _ represents the type specimen of a nominal speeies, both where such a species is regarded by specialists as having originally been a composite species and _ where it is not so regarded, is laid down in Article 31 of the Régles, as amplified and clarified by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948 (see, 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 73-76). Taxonomic considerations are involved in such a case only where specialists in the group concerned are of the _ opinion, as in the present case, that the nominal species under consideration was originally a composite species. In discussing in the following paragraphs this aspect of the present case, I naturally rely entirely upon the views expressed by Dr. Arkell and by the authorities whom he cites, having myself no personal knowledge in this matter. 6. The nominal species Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850, was based Is4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by its author upon four figures (figs. 1-4) given by him on plate 202 of his work. Figures 1 and 2 represent one specimen, figures 3 and 4 another. These two specimens are therefore the sole syntypes of this nominal species, the first syntype being represented by figs. 1 and 2, the second, by figs. 3 and 4. These two syntypes have since the time of Tornquist (1896 : 8) been regarded as being specifically distinct from one another, In the ensuing discussion, I refer to the species represented by the syntype represented by figs. 1 and 2 as Species “ A,” and to the species represented by the syntype represented by figs. 3 and 4 as Species “ B.” In the following table I have assembled certain particulars in regard to species ‘‘ A”’ and species “B” given by Dr. Arkell, which throw important light both on the nature of the problem and on the character of the action required to avoid the confusion apprehended by Dr. Arkell. Particulars relating to the two taxonomic species considered by special- ists to have been included by d’Orbigny in his composite nominal species “ Ammonites cymodoce ” d’Orbigny, 1850 Figure given by d’Orbigny. Relationship of d’Orbigny’s figures to the specimens claimed by Lemoine to have been identified as the syntypes on which those figures were based Species to which the name Am- monites cymodoce d’Orbigny applies through the selection of a lectotype from the original syntypes Name given to the syntype not selected as the lectotype of Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny Relative size of d’Orbigny’s syntypes Distinguishing characters of dOrbigny’s syntypes Genera to which species corres- ponding with d’Orbigny’s syn- types commonly referred Species “A” Figs. 1 and 2 on pl. 202. “The larger specimen is * clearly the one repre- sented in d’Orbigny’s larger figures, figs. 1 and 2 ” (Arkell). Tornquist (1896) estab- lished a new nominal species, Pictonia orbigni, expressly based on d’Orbigny’s figs. 1 and 2. Larger than that repre- sented by d’Orbigny’s figs. 3 and 4. ““A smooth ammonite with flared ribs on the inner whorls” (Arkell). Pictonia Bayle, 1878. Species “ B” Figs. 3 and 4 on pl. 202. ‘“The smaller specimen figured by Lemoine differs in many respects from d’Orbigny’s small- er figures, figs. 3 and 4, and it seems very doubtful whether the specimen has been correctly identified.” (Arkell). Tornquist (1896) selected figures 3 and 4 on pl. 202 to represent the lectotype of Ammonites cymodoce @Orbigny, which thus became the name of Species ec BG Smaller than the syntype repre- sented by d’Orbigny’s figs. 1 and 2. ‘A strongly ribbed ammonite showing ribs swung well forward but none of them flared’’(Arkell). Rasenia Salfeld, 1913. 7. The data assembled in the foregoing table show :— (a) that Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850, the type species, under the Régles (paragraph 2) of Pictonia Bayle, 1878, is in fact a species belonging to the group referred to the genus Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135 (b) that the acceptance of the above species as the type species of Pictonia Bayle, 1878, by involving the transfer to that genus of the species at present referred to Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, and the transfer to some other genus of the species currently referred to Pictonia Bayle, would create confusion in the nomenclature of the genera and species concerned. Species intended by Bayle to be referred to the genus “ Pictonia” Bayle, 1878, as contrasted with the species referable thereto under the “ Régles” in consequence of ‘ Ammonites cymodoce” d’Orbigny, 1850, being the type species of that genus. 8. We have seen (paragraph 2) that the type species of Pictonia Bayle, 1878, under the Régles is Ammonites cymodoce VOrbigny, 1850, and (paragraph 7) that this species is not a species of the genus Pictonia Bayle, as currently under- stood. This is because a further error of determination was committed by Bayle himself who, when citing the above species in explanation of his plate Ixvi, applied to it the figure of a specimen of a different species. This error was detected by Salfeld in 1913 who gave to the species figured by Bayle the name Pictoma baylei. In 1917 Salfeld followed this up by selecting Pictonia baylei Salfeld, 1913, as the type species of the genus Prclonia Bayle. In this action Salfeld has been generally followed by later writers and it is this practice that has given rise to the current conception of the genus Pactonia. Salfeld’s action in 1917 was invalid, because, as already explained (paragraph 2), the type species of Pictonia Bayle had been Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, by monotypy, from the moment that the name Pictonia was first published in 1878. Action suggested to prevent the confusion which would follow the strict application of the “ Reégles ” in the present case. 9. The Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, when revising the Regles in Paris in 1948, provided (as indicated in paragraph 3 above) a remedy in cases where the acceptance, as the type species, of the nominal species designated, indicated or selected as such under Article 30 of the Regles would clearly lead to confusion, owing to the nominal genus in question having been based upon a misidentified type species. The remedy so provided (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 158-159) was that the Commission, if satis- fied that sucha misidentification had occurred, is “‘ under its plenary powers, to designate as the type species of the genus concerned, either (a) the species intended by the original author when citing the name of the erroneously determined species, or (b) if the identity of that species is doubtful, a species in harmony with current nonienclatorial usage.” It is this provision which Dr. Arkell seeks to invoke in the present case. 10. The purpose of the action recommended being to secure that the nominal genera Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, shall have, as their respective species, species which are in harmony with the current usage of the generic names, the first action required is that the Commission should use its plenary powers to set aside all type designations, indications or 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature selections made for either of the foregoing nominal genera prior to the date of the action proposed. When we turn to the question of the species which should be designated under the plenary powers to be the type species of these genera, it is immediately evident that in the case of the genus Pictonia Bayle, 1878, the species which should be designated as the type species is Pictonia bayler, 1878, that bemg (a) the species figured by Bayle (under the erroneous name Pictonia cymodoce d’Orbigny) at the time when he first published the generic name Pictonia, and (b) the species which is commonly (though incor- rectly) regarded as the type species of that genus and which in consequence has given rise to the commonly accepted concept of the scientific content of this genus. When we turn to the question of the type species of the genus Rasena Salfeld, 1913, the position is found to be somewhat different. In this case, the type species (Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850) is, as special- ists agree, a species belonging to the genus Rasenia as currently understood. Dr. Arkell has expressed the opinion, however, that the grave discrepancies between .d’Orbigny’s figs. 3 and 4 (representing the lectotype of Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny) and the specimen claimed by Lemoine (1904) to be the actual specimen from which those figures were prepared throw the specific identity, he thinks, even the generic affinities, of that nominal species into doubt and make it unsuitable to be the type species of this important genus. I agree with the view expressed by Dr. Arkell in this matter and concur in his suggestion that some species of undoubted identity, and one clearly belong- ing to the genus Rasenia Salfeld, as currently understood, should be designated as the type species of that genus. The species suggested for this purpose by Dr. Arkell is Rasenia involuta (Salfeld M.S.) Spath, 1935 (Meddelelser Gronland 99 (No. 2): 48 pl. 10, figs. 5a, 5b). I should add that, if the nominal species Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny is to be displaced for the foregoing reasons, from its position as the type species of Rasenia Salfeld, the logical course would be to recognise that the specific name Ammonites cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850, is an unwanted nomen dubium and: therefore to suppress that name, thereby eliminating any further waste of time in discussion as to the possible identity of the taxonomic species which it was intended to represent. If these general conclusions were to be accepted by the Commission, a number of routine decisions, in regard to the addition of the various names concerned to the appropriate Official List or Official Index, would follow in the wake of the main decision. The detailed decisions which (as Dr. Arkell agrees in litt..10. ix. 1950) would be called for on the basis discussed above, are as follows :— (1) that the plenary powers of the Commission should be used : (a) to set aside all type designations, indications or selections made for the undermentioned genera prior to the date of the proposed decision :— (i) Pictonia Bayle, 1878 ; (ii) Rasenia Salfeld, 1913; (b) to designate Pictonia baylet Salfeld, 1913 (based upon Bayle’s (1878 plate Lxvi) to be the type species of Pictonia Bayle, 1878 ; 2 | | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 -(c) to designate Rasenia involuta (Salfeld M.S.) Spath, 1935 (as represented by figs. 5a and 5b on Spath’s plate 10) to be the type species of Rasenia Salfeld, 1918 ; (d) to suppress the trivial name eymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites cymodoce) ; (2) that the generic names Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1813 (gender of both generic names, feminine), with the type speices respectively designated therefor in (1) above, should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) that the undermentioned trivial names should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :-— (a) the name baylet Salfeld, 1913 (as published in the binominal combination Pictonia baylei), as defined in (1) (b) above ; (b) the name imvoluta (Salfeld M.S.) Spath, 1935 (as published in the binominal combination Rasenia involutu), as defined in (1) (c) above ; (4) that the trivial name cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites cymodoce) should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ AULACOSTEPHA- NUS ” TORNQUIST, 1896 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) (JURASSIC) By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.RB.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)384) The case of the generic name Aulacostephanus was fully reviewed by me in 1935 (Geol. Mag. 72 : 252-253, 256), when I recommended that the Commission should stabilize usage by ruling that the type be Am. mutabilis d’Orbigny nec Sowerby, which the authors presumably had in mind and intended (= Am. pseudomutabilis de Loriol). No published dissent from this recommendation has come to my notice, nor has any been received privately ; hence I now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to stabilise current usage by giving effect to my recommen- dation of 1935. The relevant facts are as follows :— (1) The name Aulacostéphanus first appears on page 5 of Tornquist’s memoir (1896), where he remarked that Olcostephanus berryeri, eumelus and pseudoeumelus are of interest on account of their relationship to “ Aula- costephanus (Am. mutabilis).” On page 7 he explained that Pompeckj in a letter had informed him of von Sutner’s and Pompeckj’s intention to pro- pose the name Aulacostephanus for “ Reineckeia’”’ mutabilis Sowerby and its allies. No other species is mentioned by name in either place. Hence on the strict interpretation of the Régles, the nominal species Ammonites muta- bilis J. de. C. Sowerby, 1823 (Min. Conch. 4: 145 pl. cecev) is the type species of this genus. (2) Ammonites mutabilis J. de C. Sowerby, from the Glacial Drift, was obscurely figured by Sowerby and inadequately described. The holotype has since been refigured by me (1933: pl. xxxix, figs. 5, 5a) and it does not belong to the group which, like Reineckeia, has a ventral smooth band. Had Sutner and Pompeckj consulted Sowerby’s holotype, they would never have referred to this species as “ Reineckeia mutabilis.” It is, in fact, a species of the genus which Salfeld (1914) called Rasenia ; Salfeld (1914, : 129) in his important stratigraphical work assigned it to Rasenia, and it has ever since been known as a zonal index fossil under the name Rasenia mutabilis. (3) Sutner and Pompeckj and Tornquist, therefore, were interpreting Am. mutabilis by some other figure, and it is highly probable that this figure was that of d’Orbigny (1850: 553, pl. ccxiv), which shows admirably one of the smooth-ventered forms with ribs interrupted over the siphuncle. The species so figured was later renamed Ammonites pseudomutabilis by de Loriol (1874 : 28, pl. v, figs. 1-3). The specimen figured by d’Orbigny was selected as the lectotype of this species by Durand (1932 : 306). 88 2 eee r— ya , Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189 (4) Salfeld (1914, loc. cit.) when establishing his zonal classification of the Upper Jurassic placed Am. pseudomutalilis de Loriol, together with the allied Am. yo d’Orbigny and Am. eudorus d’Orbigny, in the genus Aulacoste- phanus, without comment. These species and others have been called Aula- costephanus by authors ever since, and Salfeld’s separate zones of Rasenia mutabilis and Aulacostephanus pseudomutalilis are in current use by all stratigraphers. (5) To reverse current usage by transferring the name Aulacostephanus to what has always been known as Rasenia, and to rename Aulacostephanus auct. would cause serious confusion, in stratigraphy as well as in palaeontology. (6) Two attempts have been made to fix the name Aulacostephanus on the Reineckeia-like genus for which it was certainly intended. Spath (1925: 152) wrote, without stating that he was selecting a type species, ‘‘ Aulacoste- phanus (type: by Hyatt himself (1900, in Eastman’s Zittel, Textb. Paleont, 1: 580). Since then the corrected spelling has been generally used in the English-speaking countries (See Arkell, 1939 (Quart. J. Geol. Soc. 95:151). In Continental literature, a third spelling, “ Quenstedtaceras”’ is generally used, this having been first introduced by Teisseyre in 1889 (Neues Jahrb. fiir Min. Beil.-Band 6: 148). This was however an unwarranted emendation of Hyatt’s name, the termination ‘“‘-—oceras”’, which is open to no objéction, having always been used for this name. The error represented by the original spelling clearly falls within the classes of error specified in Article 19 of the Régles, and it 1s accordingly recommended that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, when placing this generic name on the Official List, should expressly emend the spelling to Quenstedtoceras. It would be desirable that at the same time the erroneous spelling Quenstedioceras and also the erroneous spelling Quenstedticeras should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (7) Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869: Buckman (S.) in 1898 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. 54: 454) changed this name to Stepheoceras. On the mistaken assumption that it was invalidated by Stephanoceros Ehrenberg, 1832 (Abh. preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1831: 125) (Rotifera) and, as the more recent of the two names, was accordingly invalid. Both the name Stephanoceras Waagen and its invalid substitute Stepheoceras Buckman are often misused in Continental literature. See Spath, 1944 (Geol. Mag. 81: 230). The name Stepheoceras Buckman, 1898, being an invalid junior objective synonym of Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology at the same time that Waagen’s Stephano- ceras is placed on the Official List. The type species of the genus Stephanoceras Waagen has been used as a zonal index fossil and is therefore of special importance in stratigraphy. 4. The following is the list of generic names which it is recommended should now be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Names recommended for addition to the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875, Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 17 : 225 (type species, by selection by Buckman (S.) 1894 (Geol. Mag. (4) 1: 361): Ammonites scipionianus d’Orbigny, 1844, Pal. frangaise, Terr. jurass. : 207, pl. 51, figs. 7, 8) (gender of generic name : neuter). Angulaticeras Quenstedt, 1883, Ammoniten schwab. Jura: 26 (type species, by selection by Lange, 1924 (Jahrb. preuss. geol. Landesanst. 44: 176): Ammonites lacunatus Buckman (J.), 1844 (Geol, Cheltenham : 105) (gender of generic name ; neuter), Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 3:79, 80 (type species, by selection by Buckman (8.), 1911 (Type Ammonites 1: v): Ammonites stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 1: 211, pl. 93) (gender of generic name : neuter). Bigotites Nicolesco, 1918, C. R. Sommaire Soc. géol. France (4) 18 : 36 (type species, by selection by Nicolesco, 1931 (Mém. Soc. géol. France 17: 23) : Bigotella petri Nicolesco, 1917, Bull. Soc. géol. France (4) 16: 167, pl. 4, figs. 4, 5) (gender of generic name: masculine). Cadoceras Fischer, 1882, Manuel Conchyl. : 394 (type species by selection by Arkell in the present application : Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814, Min. Conch. 1: 117, pl. 54) (gender of generic name : neuter). Cadomites Munier-Chalmas, 1892, Bull. Soc. géol. France (3) 20 C. R.: clxx (type species, by original designation : Ammonites deslongchampsi (Defrance MS) d’Orbigny, 1846, Pal. francaise, Terr. jurass. : 405, pl. 138, figs. 1, 2) (gender of generic name : masculine). Coroniceras Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool.3 : 77 (type species, by selec- tion by Bonarelli, 1900 (Pal. ital. 5:58): Ammonites kridion Hehl in Zieten [1830], Versten, Wiirttemb. (1): 4, pl. 3, fig. 2) (gender of generic name neuter). Echioceras Bayle, 1878, Fxplic. Carte géol. France 4: explic. pl. 77, figs. 2, 3 (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites raricostatus Zieten, [1831], Verstein. Wiirttemb. (3) : 18, pl. 13, fig. 4) (gender of generic name : neuter). Garantiana Mascke, 1907, Die Stephanoceras-Verwandt. Coronatensch. Nord- deutschl. 24, 34: type species, by original designation : Ammonites garan- ‘ tanus d’Orbigny, 1846, Pal. frangaise, Terr. jurass. : 377, pl. 123 (gender of generic name : feminine). Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920, Type Ammonites 3:14, pl. 154 (type species, by original designation : Ammonites lamberti Sowerby (J.), 1819, Min. Conch. 3:73, pl. 242, figs. 1-3) (gender of generic name : neuter). Ludwigella Buckman (8.), 1901, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club 13: 266 (type species, by monotypy: Ammonites coneavus Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 1: 214, pl. 94 (holotype refigured by Buckman (S.), 1887, Mon. Inf.—Ool. Ammonites: pl. 2, figs. 6, 7)) (gender of generic name: feminine). Oecotraustes Waagen, 1869, in Benecke’s Geognost._Pal. Beitriige 2 : 251 (type species, by selection by Munier-Chalmas, 1892 (Bull. Soc. géol. France (3) 20 C. R. : elxxi) : Oecotraustes genicularis Waagen, 1869, in Benecke’s Geognost.—Pal. Beitriége 2 : 227, pl. 20 figs. 4a—c) (gender of generic name : masculine). Oppelia Waagen, 1869, in Benecke’s Geognost—Pal. Beitriige 2 : 200 (type species, by selection by Douvillé (H.), 1884 (Bull. Soc. géol. France (3) 13 : 32) : Ammonites subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823, Min, Conch, 9:23, pl. 421, fig. 2) (gender of generic name ; feminine), ° 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Phlyseogrammoceras Buckman (S8.), 1901, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club 13 : 266 (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites dispansus Lycett, 1860, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club 2 : 146 (holotype refigured by Buckman (S.), 1922, Type Ammonites 4: pl. 340) ) (gender of generic name: neuter). . Pleuroceras Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 3:89 (type species, by selection by Fischer, 1882 (Manuel Conchyl. : 388) : Ammonites spinatus Bruguiére, 1789, Ency. méth. (Vers) : 40) (gender of generic name : neuter). Pseudogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club 13 : 266 (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites struckmanni Denckmann, 1887, Fauna Doernten, Abh. geol. Specialkarte Preussen 8 : 72, pl. iti. fig.1) (gender of generic name : neuter). Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923, Centralbl Min. 23 : 346 (type species, by monotypy : Perisphinctes rotundatus Roemer (J.), 1911, Fauna Aspidoides-Schichten Lechstedt, Inaug.—Dissert. Gottingen : 44, pl. 8, fig. 2, as defined by the selection of a lectotype by Arkell, 1950 (J. Palaeont. 24 : 363) ) (gender of generic name : masculine). Psiloceras, Hyatt, 1867, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 3:72 (type species, by selection by Spath, 1924 (Proc. geol. Assoc. 35 : 191): Ammonites planorbis Sowerby (J. de C.), 1824, Min. Conch. 5: 69, pl. 448, fig. 1) (gender of — generic name : neuter). Quenstedtoceras (emend. of Quenstedioceras) Hyatt, 1877, Proc. Boston nat. Hist. Soc. 18 : 391 (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites leacht Sowerby (J), 1819, Min. Conch 3 : 73, pl. 242, fig. 4) (gender of generic name : neuter). Sigaloceras Hyatt, 1900, 1x Eastman’s Zittel, Textb. Pal. 1 : 587 (type species, by original designation : Ammonites calloviensis Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 2 : 3, pl. 104) (gender of generic name: neuter). Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869, 1x Benecke’s Geognost—Pal. Beitrdige 2 : 248 type species, by selection by Buckman (S.), 1898 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. 54: 454): Ammonites humphriesianus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1825, Min. Conch. 5 : 161, pl. 500, fig. 1) (gender of generic name : neuter). 5. The trivial names of the type species of the genera specified in the preceding paragraph are all valid names, and each is the oldest available name for the species concerned. It is recommended that these trivial names, as listed below, should now be placed on the Official Inst of pipe Trivial Names in Zoology :— Names recommended for addition to the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ” calloviensis Sowerby (J), 1815, Min. Conch. 2:3, pl. 104 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites calloviensis). concavus Sowerby (J.), 1915, Min. Conch. 1: 214, pl. 94 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites concavus), an a ae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 deslongschampsi (Defrance MS). d’Orbigny, 1846, Pal. frangaise, Terr. jurass. : 405, pl. 138, figs. 1, 2 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites deslongschampsi). dispansus Lyeett, 1860, Proc. Cotieswold Nat. Field Club 2: 146 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites dispansus). garantianus (’Orbigny, 1846, Pal. frangaise, Terr. jurass. : 377, pl. 123 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites garantianus). genicularis Waagen, 1869, in Benecke’s Ceognost.—Pal. Beitrdge 2: 227, pl. 20, figs. 4a-c (as*published in the binominal combination Oecotraustes genicularis). humphriesianus Sowerby (J. de'C.), 1825, Min. Conch. 5 : 161, pl. 500, fig. 1 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites humphriesianus). kridion Hehl in Zieten, [1830], Verstein. Wiirrtemb. (1) : 4, pl. 3, fig. 2 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites kridion). lacunatus Buckman (J.), 1844, Geol. Cheltenham: 105 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites lacunatus). lamberti Sowerby (J.), 1819, Min. Conch. 3 : 73, pl. 242, figs. 1-3 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites lamberti). leachi Sowerby (J.), 1819, Min. Conch. 3:73, pl. 242, fig. 4 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites leachi). petri Nicolesco, 1917, Bull. Soc. géol. France (4) 16 : 167, pl. 4, figs. 4, 5 (as published in the binominal combination Bigotella petri) planorbis Sowerby (J. de C.), 1824, Min. Conch. 5: 69, pl. 448, fig. 1 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites planorbis). raricostatus Zieten [1831], Verstein. Wiirttemb. (3): 18, pl. 13, fig. 4 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites raricostatus). rotundatus Roemer (J.), 1911, Fauna Aspidoides-Schichten Lechstedt, Inaug. Dissert. Gottingen : 44, pl. 8, fig. 2 (as published in the binominal com- bination Perisphinctes rotundatus). scipionianus d’Orbigny, 1844, Pal. frangaise, Terr. jurass. : 207, pl. 51, figs. 7, 8 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites scipionianus). spinatus Bruguiére, 1789, Ency. méth. (Vers) : 40 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites spinatus). stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 1: 211, pl. 93 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites stellaris). struckmanni Denckmann, 1887, Fauna Doernten, Abh. geol. Specialkartz _ Preussen 8:72, pl. 3, fig. 1 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites struckmanni). sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814, Min. Conch. 1 : 117, pl. 54 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites sublaevis). 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823 Min. Conch. 5: 23, pl. 421, fig. 2 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites subradiatus.) 6. The recommendations which I therefore now submit to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are that it should :-— (1) declare that under Article 19 :— (a) the correct spelling of the generic name published by Waagen in 1869 both as Oecotraustes and as Ockotraustes is Oecotraustes ; (b) the correct spelling of the generic name published by Hyatt in 1877 as Quenstedioceras is Quenstedtoceras ; (2) place on the Oficial List of Generic Names in Zoology the twenty-one generic names specified in paragraph 4 of the present application ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the twenty-one trivial names specified in paragraph 5 of the present application ; (4) place the under-mentioned names or alleged names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Bourkelamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920 (an objective junior synonym of Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920) ; (6) Garantia Roller, 1909 (an unjustified emendation of Garantiana Mascke, 1907) ; (c) Garantiana Hyatt, 1900 (a nomen nudum) ; (d) Lamberticeras Kilian, 1910 (a nomen nudum) ; (e) Ocekotraustes Waagen, 1869 (an erroneous spelling of Oeco- traustes Waagen, 1869) ; (f) Paltopleuroceras Buckman (S.), 1898 (an objective junior synonym of Plewroceras Hyatt, 1867) ; (9) Quenstedticeras Teisseyre, 1889 (an incorrect emendation of the defective form, Quenstedioceras, in which the name Quenstedtoceras was originally published) ; (h) Quenstedioceras Hyatt, 1877 (an erroneous spelling of Quen- stedtoceras Hyatt, 1877) ; (t) Stepheoceras Buckman (S.), 1898 (an objective junior synonym of Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869). OO 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 APPENDIX Explanatory notes regarding certain of the generic names proposed to be added to the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” The sign * prefixed before the name of a genus indicates that the type species of that genus has been used as a zonal index fossil and is therefore of special importance in stratigraphy. * Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875: Although in 1894 he had selected Ammonites scipronianus d’Orbigny, 1844, as the type species of this genus, Buckman (S.) later (1909, Type Ammonites 1: ii) sought to change the type species of this genus to Ammonites striaries Quenstedt, 1858. See also Buckman, 1924, op. ct. 5:33. Roman (1938, Ammonites jurass. et. crét.: 102) wrongly gave Ammonites laevigatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1827, as the type species. Angulaticeras Quenstedt, 1883: The only originally included species in this: genus were Ammonites lacunatus Buckman (J.), 1844, and Ammonites boucaultianus d’Orbigny, 1844. Buckman (8.) in 1906 (Proc. Cotteswold Nat. Field Club 15 : 233) selected as typical of this genus “the group of Am. lacunatus Quenstedt.” This cannot be accepted as the selection of a type species under Rule (g) in Article 30 “rigidly construed.” Accordingly, the first valid type-selection for this genus is that cited in the present application, namely, that by Lange (1924). * Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866: As stated in the application, the first type- selection for this genus was that of Ammonites stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815, by Buckman (1911). Roman, 1938 (Ammonites jurass. crét.: 91) was therefore in error when he stated that Ammonites obtusus Sowerby (J.), 1817, was the type species. Bigotites Nicolesco,. 1918: Roman (overlooking the action by Nicolesco in 1931) erroneously stated (1938, Ammonites jurass. crét. : 240) that Bugotella haugi Nicolesco, 1917, was the type species of this genus. Cadoceras Fischer, 1882: Fischer cited as sole species of this genus, the pre-1758 name Nautilites modiolaris Luidius,. 1699 (Lnthophyl. Brit. : 18, pl. vi, fig. 292), which has commonly been treated by authors as applying to the same species as Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814. The first author to cite nominal species under the generic name Cadoceras Fischer appears to have been Nikitin (1884, Cephalopodenfauna der Jurabildungen des Gouv. Kostroma : 21), who after stating incorrectly that the generic name Cadoceras was chosen by Fischer for Am. sublaevis and similar forms of Stephanoceras described three species as belonging to this genus and mentioned several others. Under the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, when incorporating in the Reégles a clarified and amended version of the ruling _ previously given by the Commission in Opinion 46 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 159-160, 340), the nominal species cited by Nikitin are alone _ eligible for selection as the type species of Cadoceras. Fortunately, as shown above, Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby, which is commonly regarded as repre- _ sentative of Cadoceras (through its identification with the modiolaris of Luidius) _ was one of the species cited by Nikitin and is therefore eligible for selection 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as the type species of this genus. Neither Nikitin nor Pompeckj (1899) nor any subsequent author has, so far as I can ascertain, ever selected a type species for Cadoceras Fischer. Accordingly, in order to regularise existing practice, I have now (: 224) selected Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby, 1814 (=Cado- ceras sublaeve (Sowerby (J.), 1814)) to be the type species of Cadoceras Fischer, 1882. > Cadomites Munier-Chalmas, 1892: This generic name has been wrongly used in many French works for the genus, the correct name of which is Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869 (q.v.). The lectotype of Ammonites deslongchampsi d’Orbigny, 1846 (the type species of this genus) was nies dens in 1909 (Palaeont. univ. 1909 : pl. 132). Coroniceras Hyatt, 1867: As stated in the present application, Bonarelli in 1900 selected Ammonites kridion Hehl, 1830, as the type species of this genus. The later action by Buckman (S.) (1911, Type Ammonites 1: vi) in so selecting Ammonites coronaries Quenstedt, 1858, was therefore invalid. It has however, led to some misuse of the generic name Coroniceras. * Echioceras Bayle, 1878: The type species of this genus is (as stated in the present application) Ammonites raricostatus Zieten, [1831], by monotypy. Buckman (S.) (1914, Type Ammonites 2: ix) was therefore in error when he stated that the type species was Echioceras raricostatoides Vadasz, 1908, this being the name of the species erroneously figured by Bayle as Echioceras rare- costatum [sic] (Zieten). This action by Buckman has led to some confusion in later works. * L[udwigella Buckman (S.), 1901: Although the type species of this genus is Ammonites concavus Sowerby (J.), 1815, by monotypy, Buckman twice later attempted invalidly to change the type species (1904, Mon. Inf. Ool. Amm., Suppl. : lxxxiv ; 1923, Type Ammonites 4 : 56). Oppelia Waagen, 1869: The type species of this genus is (as stated in the present application) Ammonites subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823, by selection by Douvillé (H.) in 1884. The later action by Buckman (S.) (1920, Type Ammonites 3: 25) in selecting one of Waagen’s figured specimens as “ genolectype ” was therefore invalid. * Phlyseogrammoceras Buckman (8.), 1901: Although (as stated in the present application the type species of this genus is Ammonites dispansus Lycett, 1860, Buckman (S.) erroneously attempted (1904, Mon. Inf. Ool. Amm., Suppl. : cliv) to change the type species to Ammonites metallarius Dumortier, 1874. * Pseudogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901: This is another monotypical genus (type species: Ammonites struckmanni Denckmann, 1887), the type species of which Buckman later (1904, Mon. Inf. Ool. Amm., Suppl. : a attempted incorrectly to alter. * Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923: This case is similar to that of Pseudogrammoceras, Schindewolf in 1925 (Neues Jahrb. fiir Min. 1925 : 319) attempting to alter the type species. a % Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 * Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867: Buckman (S.) (1924, Type Ammonites § : 34) criticised Spath’s action in the same year in selecting Ammonites planorbis Sowerby (J. de C.), 1824, and erroneously rejected that action, arguing that Ammonites psilonotus Quenstedt, 1845, was the type species by virtual tau- tonymy. - * Sigaloceras Hyatt, 1900: This is a case where the original author of the generic name designated a type species, citing, for this purpose, a specific name (Ammonites calloviensis) previously published by Sowerby (J.) in 1815, but attributing it to another author (d’Orbigny). The specimens treated .by d’Orbigny as belonging to Sowerby’s species have not yet been examined _ and it is therefore not known whether they were correctly determined. In any case, authors have treated Sowerby’s species as being the type species of this genus (thereby conforming to the requirements of Opinions 65 and 168, the decisions in which were confirmed by the Thirteenth International Con- gress of Zoology in Paris in 1948—see Bull. zool. Zool. 4: 158-159). Accord- ingly, there are in this case no grounds for asking the International Commission to change the type species. i 234 Bulletin of Zoological N. omenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE TRIVIAL NAME “ VIRGULA” DESHAYES, 1831 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “ GRYPHAEA VIRGULA ”) (CLASS PELE- CYPODA) (JURASSIC) THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE SPECIES IN QUESTION By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.S8c., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)407) 1. The small sickle-shaped oyster characteristic of the lower part of the Kimeridge Clay all over England and Europe has been known for about 130 years, in the literature of all languages, as Hxogyra virgula (Deshayes (=Giry- phoea virgula Deshayes, 1831 (: 90, pl. v, figs. 12, 13)). (The name Ostrea virgula, as published by Defrance, 1820, was intended to denote the same species, but the name, as then published, was a nomen nudum.) 2. The “ Marnes 4 Ostrea virgula”’ have figured in French literature at least since 1833 (Thirria : 145), and the Virgulaschichten in German literature at least since 1864 (von Seebach : 56); and Thurmann’s Virgulian Stage (1852) has been adopted by many geologists. Hxogyra virgula is the only name used for this species in all geological text-books of all languages. 3. In 1930, Dr. L. R. Cox discovered (Cox, 1930: 298) that the species named EHzogyra virgula by Deshayes in 1831 had been named and briefly diagnosed, but not figured, by William Smith fourteen years earlier (1817 : 45) under the name Chama striata. The description was ‘“ Oblong, elongated, curved, longitudinally striated; striae irregular’, and two Kimeridge Clay localities were given. Two syntypes survive in the William Smith collection and Cox selected one of those as the lectotype and published a figure of it. There is also another long rejected trivial name which unfortunately has priority over the name wirgula Deshayes, 1831; this is the name angusta _ Lamarck, 1819 (: 200) (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea angusta). 4. On the advice of the late Dr. F. L. Kitchin, then Chief Palaeontologist of the Geological Survey, I continued to use the name Ezogyra virgula in my Jurassic System (1933), and on the advice of his successor, Mr. C. P. Chatwin, I did the same in the official memoir on the type-area of the Kimeridge Clay (Arkell, 1947). 5. In view of the geological importance of this fossil and the length of time during which it has been known by the name Ezogyra virgula and the needless confusion and inconvenience which would arise if that name were to be discarded in favour of the totally neglected name bestowed upon it by Ts . i a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature - 235 William Smith, or by the equally neglected name angusta Lamarck, 1819, I recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1) to suppress the trivial names striata Smith, 1817 (as published in the binominal combination Chama striata), and angusta Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea angusta), (2) to place the foregoing trivial names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (3) to place the trivial name virgula Deshayes, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea virgula) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. References : Arkell, W. J., 1933. “ The Jurassic System in Great Britain.” Arkell, W. J., 1947. “‘ Geology of the country around Weymouth, Swanage, Corfe and Lulworth”, Mem. geol. Survey. Cox, L. R., 1930. “On British Fossils named by William Smith”, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10)6 : 287. Defrance, M. J. L., 1821. Dict. Sci. nat., 22 : 26. Deshayes, G. P., 1831. Coquilles caract des Terrains. Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. de, 1819. Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vertébr., 6(1) : 200. Seebach, K. von, 1864. Der Hannoversche Jura. Smith, W., 1817. Stratigraphical System of Organised Fossils. - Thirria, 1833. Statisque de la Haute Sadne. 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE TRIVIAL NAME “ ASPER” LAMARCK, 1819 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “PECTEN ASPER”) (CLASS PELEC- YPODA) THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE SPECIES IN QUESTION By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)408) 1. Pecten asper Lamarck (1819 : 167, 180) is a common and characteristic fossil of the Upper Greensand all over England and Europe. For 130 years it has been known by no other name. 2. This name was used as a zonal index by Barrois (1876 : 14), since when the Zone of Pecten asper has appeared in numerous text-books and in the official memoirs of the Geological Survey, especially the great stratigraphical memoir on the Cretaceous rocks (Jukes-Browne, 1900 : 62, etc.) and in Woods’ monograph on the British Cretaceous Lamellibranchia (: 186, pls. xxxv—vi). 3. In 1940, Dr. L. R. Cox discovered (Cox, 1940: 125) that the species named Pecten asper by Lamarck in 1819 had been described and figured six years earlier in an obscure publication by Pulteney (1813 : 107, 108, figs. 4, 5) as Pecten scaber and Pecten triplicatus. He adopted the former name on account of page priority, and it appears to be the valid name. 4. Although the fossil Pecten asper has been superseded by an ammonite as a better zonal index, it is still an important stratigraphical fossil, and it occupies a place in the history of stratigraphy which makes a change of name at this late date extremely undesirable as being calculated to cause confusion in nomenclature without serving any useful purpose. 5. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature (1) to use their plenary powers to suppress the trivial names scaber Pulteney, 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten scaber) and triplicatus Pulteney, 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten triplicatus), (2) to place the foregoing trivial names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, and (3) to place the trivial name asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten asper) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. ' % ‘ i ; : - Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 References : Barrois, C., 1876. Recherches sur le terrain crétacé supérieur de l’ Angleterre et de I’ Irlande, Lille. Cox, L. R., 1940. “Cretaceous mollusca described by R. Pulteney in the second edition of Hutchins’ History of Dorset (1813)”, Proc. malacol. Soc., Lond. 24 : 121. Jukes-Browne, A. J., 1900, “Cretaceous Rocks of Britain,” vol. 1, Mem. geol. Survey. Lamarck, J. P. B., 1819, “ Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertebr.”’, 6(1) : 167, 180. Pulteney, R., 1813. “ Catalogue of the birds, shells, and some of the more tare plants of Dorsetshire,” in Hutchins’ History of Dorset, 1st ed. Woods, H., 1899—1903, “A monograph of the Cretaceous lamellibranchia of England ” (Palaeontographical Soc.) 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON DR.W. J. ARKELL’S PROPOSAL FOR THE VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE TRIVIAL NAMES “ ASPER” LAMARCK, 1819 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BI- NOMINAL COMBINATION “PECTEN ASPER”) AND “VIRGULA” DESHAYES, 1831 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “GRYPHAEA VIRGULA”) (CLASS PELECYPODA) By L. R. COX, Sc.D., F.R.S. (Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), London) (Extract from a letter dated 11th September, 1950) (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)407 (“ virgula”) and Z.N.(S.)480 (“asper ”)) Thank you for your letter of 23rd August referring to the application for the protection of the names Gryphaea virgula and Pecten asper. Certainly the two names to which the present applications relate are so well known that they should be among the first to be protected. ——————— Se CU? Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 ON AN APPLICATION, THE GRANT OF WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE NAME “ GRYPHAEA” LAMARCK, 1801, SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, THUS VALIDATING THE NAME “ GRYPHAEA ” LAMARCK, 1819 (CLASS PELECYPODA) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)365) 1. Attention is drawn to a request submitted by M. Gilbert Ranson to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948, in which he asked the Commission to give a ruling (1) that the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck ranks for purposes of zoological nomen- clature from 1819 not from 1801 (the year in which it was first published) and (2) that the type species of this genus is Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819 (Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 6(1) : 198). The text of M. Ranson’s application has been published by the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 168-170), as also has been the Official Record of Proceedings at the Meeting of the Inter- national Commission at which M. Ranson’s application was presented (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 306) and that of the Meeting of the Section on Nomen- clature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology held concurrently with the meeting of the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 96-98). 2. The late Mr. R. Winckworth poited out at that meeting that the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 398) was published with a diagnosis and therefore that, this name, so published, satisfies the requirements of Article 25 of the Regles. On the above occasion Lamarck cited, under this generic name, the names of nine nominal species ;_ several of those names were at that time nomina nuda, but others were validated by the citation of bibliographical references. Under the Régles, therefore, these latter species alone are eligible for selection as the type species of this genus. One of these nominal species, Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (loc. cit. : 398), was selected as the type species of this genus by Anton in 1839 (Verz. Conchyl. :21). This being the first occasion on which any of originally included species was so selected, the fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, is under the Régles the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801. 3. M. Ranson has made it clear in his application that he considers it important that the name Gryphaea Lamarck should be accepted as the generic name for the recent species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819; this species ; _ was so selected by Children (1823). This type selection, though prior to that by Anton, is invalid, since at the time when in 1801 the generic name Gryphaea was first validly published by Lamarck, the name Gryphaea angulata, then _ cited by Lamarck, was a mere nomen nudum and accordingly does not rank as an originally included species and is ineligible for selection by a later author _ to be the type species of the genus in question. In presenting this problem to 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the International Commission, M. Ranson argued in favour of the acceptance of the Histoire Naturelle of 1819 in place of the Systéme of 1801 as the work, as from which the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck should be chosen. In advancing this view, M. Ranson did not ask that the International Commis- sion should use its plenary powers to secure the end that he had in view but sought to show that it would be permissible, under the normal operation of the Régles, to disregard the Systéme of 1801. As the late Mr. Winckworth has shown, this would, however, not be possible. Nevertheless, if the majority of interested specialists were to favour the end sought by M. Ranson, namely the acceptance of Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, as the type species of the nominal genus Gryphaea Lamarck, a solution in that sense could readily be provided by the International Commission by the use of its plenary powers. 4. The issue which, in effect, the Titoesmicnel Commission is asked to decide is :— (1) whether the normal provisions of the Regles are to be allowed to operate in the present case, with the result that the generic name Gryphaea would rank from Lamarck, 1801, and would have, as its type species, the fossil hates a ee arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (by selection by Anton, 1839) ; (2) whether the plenary powers should be used to suppress the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and all uses of that generic name from 1801 to the date in 1819, when it was republished by Lamarck in the Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr, the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819 (so validated) having, as its type species, the recent species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819 (by selection by Children, 1823). 5. As the application submitted in this matter by M. Ranson is of direct concern to palaeontologists as well as to zoologists, the International Com- mission, before reaching a decision, will be anxious to be fully informed of the wishes of interested specialists in both fossil and recent species of the group concerned. 6. The object of the present note is to draw attention to the problem which has been submitted to the International Commission and to invite interested specialists to be good enough to furnish the Commission as soon as possible with their views on that problem and on the best means of solving it. Com- munications on this subject should be addressed to the Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Secretariat of the Com- mission, 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. ct AUR Cee) ~5 HAY 1981 (continued from front wrapper) Introductory note on applications submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to the names of certain Jurassic ammonites. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. at is Cambridge University, Cambridge) ve Fi a oa Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 (Class ie ae ice Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge), with an fe on the question whether the suppression of the name Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), under the plenary powers would cause any inconvenience to coleopterists. By C. E. Tottenham Se na a ee aig University, Cambridge) ~~ .. she Proposed designation, under the plenary powers of the type species of the genus Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W.J. Arkell, M.A.,D.Sc., F.R.S. Coane Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) .. Proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of the type species of the genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, and of the type specimen of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. Sik pee Coma University, Cambridge) : Dr. W. J. Arkell’s application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for rulings (a) on the question of the type species of Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, and (6) on the ope of the type specimen of Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 ie Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., ead to the International Commission on Zoological ‘Nomenclature Fe Proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of the type species of Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasemia Salfeld, 1913 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. os a Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) : On the proposals relating to the determination of the type species of the nominal genera Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) submitted to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. W. J. Arkell. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Rea eans to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature - FS Zo byte aS eid Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of the genus Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. Bia ced whi Cambridge University, Cambridge) Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of Waagen’s ae aay oa Kosmoceras, Harpoceras and Perisphinctes (Class Ihalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D. Bc, F.R.S. (Sedewick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) .. Proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the name Planites de Haan, 1825, and to determine the use of the name Nautilus polygyratus Reinecke, 1818 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) ais ie ae BS e% se fs 2 Ee Application for the suppression under the plenary powers of five early generic names now fallen into disuetude published for ammonites (Class Cephal- opoda, Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) .. ee 25 _ Proposal to suppress the generic name Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789, under the plenary powers and to place the generic name Arietites Waagen, 1869 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. it Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge). . Page 163 164 167 170: 173- 178. 18k 188: 191. 194 198. (continued from overleaf) On the generic names Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878, and Scamnoceras Lange, 1924: proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the name Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. Seta es Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) .. i te ae ae ‘On the relative status of the names Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, and Seguenzi- ceras Levi, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. eae specu cpa University, Cambridge) a a ie ‘On the relevance to the availability of a name under the Régles of the question whether the author, when publishing that name, intended it to be avail- able for use as a scientific name. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature .. Proposed validation of the name Arisphinctes Buckman, 1924, by the sup- pression under the plenary powers of the name Toxosphinctes Buckman, 1923 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., ape S. er ae eae. University, Cambridge) pe = - oh oe Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of the genus Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By W. Jj. Arkell, .M.A;, D.Sc.; F.R.S. sae inns pad coe Cambridge University, Cambridge) : A ‘Se Proposed use of the plenary powers to ein the type species of Liparoceras Hyatt, 1867, a genus based upon a misidentified type species (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) .. Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate the type species of Norman- nites Munier-Chalmas, 1892, a genus based upon a misidentified type species (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic). By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. ae Museum, ert has University, Cambridge) oP us abs 2 S Proposed addition to the apa List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of twenty-one genera of Jurassic ammonites (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) and matters incidental thereto. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge ae Proposed use of the plenary powers for the purpose of making the trivial name virgula Deshayes, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea virgula) (Class Pelecypoda) (Jurassic) the oldest available name for the species in question. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. Bae = wick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) . Proposed use of the plenary powers for the purpose of making the trivial name asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten asper) (Class Pelecypoda) the oldest available name for the species in question. By W. J. Arkell, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) ee whe ae Un ae On Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the validation, under the plenary powers, of the trivial names asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten asper) and virgula Deshayes, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea virgula) (Class Pelecypoda). By L. R. Cox, Sc.D., F.R.S. easel nee of iia ely British Museum (Natural History), London) xs ae On an application, the grant of which would require that the name Pee ie: ck, 1801 should be suppressed under the plenary powers, thus } validating the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819 (Class Pelecypoda). Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., “Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ws : ts . a's Printed in Great Britain by MetcHim anpD Son, Ltp., Westminster, London VOLUME 2. Parts 9/10 | pp. 241—304 August, 1951 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL fy ; ? The Official Organ of ere _ THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ; CONTENTS : Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. . ia ate 241 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases i = oF * a ie Page 242 (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1951 Price One Pound (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL : NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) ‘ ‘1 | a 4 y B. The Members of the Commission {arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re- election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) ‘ Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (1st January 1944) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January. 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (lst January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (1st January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor‘ Dr. Angel Cahrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Peirre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Honorary Secretary and Managing Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., — C.B.E. . Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust g Secretariat of the Commission : 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, d N.W.1 4 Offices of the Trust : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 eS ss ee rc Or BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 2, Parts 9/10 (pp. 241-304) 15th August, 1951 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 5 : 5-13, 131). é (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Double Part (vol. 2, Parts 9/10) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued). (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases Notice is hereby given that the possible use of the plenary powers is involved in applications published in the present Double Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Vol. 2, Parts 9/10) in relation to the following names :— (1) Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, and Poneramoeba Liihe, 1909 (Class Rhizopoda) (action designed to validate existing practice) (Z.N.(S.) 185). (2) dentatus Diesing, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Stephanurus dentatus) (question whether this name should be preserved - for the kidney worm of swine) (Z.N.(8.) 188). (3) Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (proposed validation of existing nomenclatorial practice) (Z.N.(S.) 212). (4) acuminata Toff & Tiflov, 1946 (as published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata) as applied to species No. 68 (proposed elimination of homonymy caused by a printer’s error) (Z.N.(S.) 386). FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpvon, N.W.1, England. 28th July, 1951. | : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 “ENTAMOEBA COLI” VERSUS “ENDAMOEBA COLI” By HAROLD KIRBY _ (Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)185) (Application submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature on 17th January, 1945: first published in June, 1945, in The Journal of Parasitology 31 (3) : 177-184). In drawing up the argument for Opinion 99 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Stiles showed a wish to reject the name Entamoeba in the interest of clear distinction. He wrote: “ It seems obvious that unless the name Entamoeba is definitely suppressed both the nomenclatorial and the . taxonomic status of the species which come into consideration will become even more confused.” The result of his reasoning was rejection of the name, but the benefits that he hoped for have not been realised. There have been some who in following the Opinion have been influenced to take a position regarding the taxonomic status of the amoebae that is not in accord with clear distinction, because unless they took that position the necessary large nomen- clatorial departure from the usage that is very widespread in the literature of medical zoology would indeed result in confusion. Retention of the two names Endamoeba and Entamoeba would permit a clear-cut taxonomic differentiation to be made at the same time that a minimum of departure from customary usage is necessitated. Therefore it seems to me that Opinion 99 has actually increased the difficulty that Stiles wished to avoid. I agree with Dobell (1938) _ that the Opinion in its present form should not be regarded as decisive. The equivocal interpretation that some authors have made of Opinion 99 is illustrated by Craig’s criticism (1944) of Kudo’s retention of the name Entamoeba: “It would have been much better had he followed the ruling _ of the International Committee of Zoological Nomenclature and used the spelling recommended by it as preferable, i.e., “ Endamoeba.’’’ Kudo took the position that the species coli should not be put into the same genus as the species blaitae, and his failure to follow Opinion 99 made it possible for him to choose Entamoeba __as the generic name for coli. It is not a question of alternative spelling of the _ name of the genus: the Opinion does not constitute an approval of the spelling _ Endamoeba as against Entamoeba. There is no choice of orthography: En- _ damoeba is correct and has priority as the name of the genus typified by £. _ blattae ; all amoebae in that genus are called Endamoeba, and those not in that _ genus cannot be called Endamoeba. The Opinion was published in 1928, and so far as I know, between that time _ and this only two names have been used in connection with the species colt, histolytica and gingivalis: Endamoeba by those who put the three amoebae into the same genus as blattae, and Entamoeba by those who do not. The authors in the former group do not accept the generic distinction ; whether or not Bull. zool. Nomenel. Vol. 2, Pts. 9/10. August, 1951 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature they follow Opinion 99 does not properly enter into their adoption of Enda- moeba. The authors in the latter group do recognise the generic distinction, and do not follow the Opinion. If there should be a third group of authors, who recognise generic distinction among these endozoic amoebae, and accept Opinion 99, it would be necessary for them to write Poneramoeba histolytica, Poneramoeba coli, and Poneramoeba gingivalis. The following chronological summary of the history of this matter sets forth the important facts that need to be considered :— 1879. Leidy (1879a, p. 300) introduced the generic name Endamoeba, with the one species Endamoeba blattae, named Amoeba blattae by Biitschli in 1878. The same proposal was printed on 2nd December in Leidy, 1879b, p. 205. 1895. Casagrandi and Barbagallo introduced the generic name Entamoeba, giving as the included species Amoeba coli (Lésch) and Amoeba blatiarum (Biitschli). They were ignorant of Leidy’s name. 1897. Casagrandi and Barbagallo (p. 163) again printed the name En- tamoeba, giving as the included species Entamoeba hominis and Entamoeba blattarum. A 1903. Schaudinn, using the generic name Entamoeba C. & B., divided Amoeba coli of Lésch into two species, Entamoeba coli Lésch and Entamoeba histolytica n. sp. He did not mention the species blattae, and probably was ignorant of Leidy’s name. 1910. Chatton assigned various endozoic amoeba to the genus “ Entamoeba Leidy (1879).”” Among the included species were: Entamoeba coli (Lésch) 1875, emend. Schaudinn (1903); #. blattae (Biitschli) 1878; E. ranarum (Grassi) 1881 ; E. histolytica Schaudinn 1903. Chatton stated that the paternity of Entamoeba had been wrongly attributed by authors to Casagrandi and Barbagallo. He made no reference to the fact that Leidy’s name was actually Endamoeba. 1912. Séance du 14 février, mémoire paru le 5 mars (acc. to Chatton, 1912). Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire wrote (p. 142): ‘‘ La dénomination non latine d’Entamibes, appliquée aux amibes normalement parasites du tube digestif est d’un usage commode qui la fera conserver. Mais traduite en nom générique latin, elle ne peut plus s’appliquer actuellement aux amibes du tube disgestif des Vertébrés. Ce n’est pas, en effet, 4 ces derniéres qu'elle a été appliquée © en premier lieu. O’est Leidy qui & créé le genre Entamoeba pour l’amibe de la Blatte, et ce n’est qu’en 1897 que Casagrandi et Barbagallo l’ont appliquée aux amibes intestinales des Vertébrés.” The authors considered that the amoebae of vertebrates must be put in a separate genus, for which they proposed the name Léschia, to contain coli Lésch and other species. 1912. Séance du 26 mars. Chatton reported again the generic differentiation eo ee a =e a ) or Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 of endozoic amoebae made in the above paper. He definitely designated Léschia coli Lésch, cysts 8 nuclei or more, as type of the genus Léschia. Remarking that protistologists had wrongly attributed the paternity of the genus En- tamoeba to Casagrandi and Barbagallo 1897, he wrote (p. 111): ‘‘ Ces derniers avaient bien appliqué le nom d’Entamoeba 4 une Entamibe humaine, mais Leidy l’avait donné des 1879 4 I’ Amoeba blattae de Biitschli.” In a footnote to this statement he noted that Leidy’s spelling was “ Endamoeba,” but dismissed that name as an orthographic variant. 1913. Brumpt wrote of the amoebae of man under the name “ Entamoeba Leidy, 1879,” making the same mistake for Endamoeba that Chatton as well as Alexeieff (1912) had previously made. In a footnote (p. 21) he wrote: “Ce méme genre a été créé de nouveau en 1897 par Casagrandi et Barbagallo pour leur E. hominis, synonyme de E. coli.”” That sentence has been accepted by Stiles and Boeck (1923, p. 122), Stiles and Hassall (1925, p. 8), and Stiles (1928 in Opinion 99) as a designation of the’type FZ. coli (as E. hominis) for Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo. (In the third edition, 1922, Brumpt made the same error of “‘ Entamoeba Leidy”’; but in the next one, 1927, he used Entamoeba C. & B. and noted that Endamoeba Leidy should be reserved, in agreement with Wenyon, 1926, for the amoeba of the roach.) 1919. Dobell used Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, for E. blattae only, and En- tamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, for E. coli, EH. histolytica, and E. gingivalis. 1923. Stiles and Boeck, in a study of the nomenclatorial status of the protozoa of man (p. 125), considered the genus Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, with two sub-genera: Hndamoeba Leidy, 1879 (type by monotypy Z£. blattae) and Poneramoeba Liihe, 1909 (type by monotypy and original designation £. histolytica). They stated (p. 124) that ‘“‘ Entamoeba 1895 is not available because of Endamoeba 1879”; evidently that is because they thought of Entamoeba as a homonym, or orthographic variant, because here they dealt with a separate taxonomic category (the sub-genus) from Endamoeba. The type of Entamoeba 1895 is given (p. 122, 124) as EB. hominis tsd.=coli and coli’ (s. hominis) ; type by subsequent designation is by Brumpt, 1913. 1925. Stiles and Hassall, in the “‘ Key-Catalogue of the Protozoa Reported for Man,” list (p. 8) Entamoeba C. & B., 1895, type by subsequent designation hominis =coli, as a subjective synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. It appears from the definition of subjective synonym by Stiles and Boeck, 1923, that it is a category providing for cases where the identity in question is not absolute, but depends on “ the experience and judgment of the reviser ” (p. 138.) Since in the key-catalogue the types of Entamoeba and Endamoeba are given as different, although those two types are treated as members of the same genus, it is likely that the reference is to the difference of opinion about generic assign- ment. Otherwise Entamoeba would simply have been designated as a homonym ; _ that category is dealt with in the same paper. Reference to Entamoeba as a _ synonym is, therefore, evidently on the basis that its type, Ent. col, belongs _ in the same genus as End. blattae, according to Stiles and Hassall. 246 Bulletin of Zoological: Nomenclature 1928. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature published Opinion 99 in response to an inquiry as to whether the names Hndamoeba and Entamoeba should be considered homonyms. The summary of the Opinion reads : “ Entamoeba 1895, with blattae as type by subsequent (1912) designation, is absolute synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type blattae, and invalidates Entamoeba 1895, type by subsequent (1913) designation hominis= coli.” The report also contained the decision that Entamoeba is a homonym of (‘“ philologically the same as”’) Endamoeba. It is presumably on that basis that the Secretary recommended that “‘ the name Entamoeba 1895, either with type hominis=coli as definitely designated by Brumpt, 1913, p. 21, or with blattae as accepted by Chatton and Lalung (1912, 111) and as implied by Chatton (1910, 282), be definitely invalidated by Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type blattae, irrespective of the point whether the type of Entamoeba be considered blattae or colt.” (The reference to Chatton and Lalung, 1912, p. 111, is evidently a mistake for Chatton and paige car eo sctarset 1912, p. 142, or for Chatton, 1912, p. 111.) It is evident from this summary that Stiles (1928) was justified in his statement that “‘the case has already produced considerable confusion in literature.” It is also evident, however, that this confusion need not have existed if authors had simply been attentive to the correct forms. Then Endamoeba Leidy would have been used for any generic concept including the species blattae ; and Entamoeba C. & B. would either have been rejected, or used solely for any generic concept omitting blattae and including coli. The errors made by earlier authors should not influence us in an effort to reach a solution of the problem. The answer to the taxonomic problem is subject to differences of opinion. Many authors follow the usage of Stiles and Boeck, 1923, in writing Endamoeba, coli ; that usage has been almost universal in American compilations in medical zoology since it was adopted in 1926 by Craig (who in 1911 used Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo without reference to the genus Endamoeba Leidy). American writers who recognise generic distinction between blattae and coli ‘include Kudo (1939, 1944), Wenrich (Entamoeba used for histolytica and coli in 1940, 1944, and other papers of similar date), Cleveland (Cleveland and Sanders, 1930, and other papers), Pearse (1942), and Meglitsch (1940, in connection with a profound study of blattae). And there are many in various parts of the world who follow the same course ; (for example, Wenyon, 1926 ; Dobell, 1919, 1938; Brumpt, 1936; Reichenow,. 1928), so that it is not a question of individual or even_ minority disagreement in the question of taxonomic differentiation. It is not my purpose in this paper to attempt to defend one position in taxonomy or attack the other. Because of the very large difference between the species blattae and coli in the nuclear structure of the trophic forms, I think that the burden of proof should rest on those who assert that the two amoebae belong in the same genus—especially when the same authors recognise as valid certain other genera of endozoic amoebae. A comprehensive analysis of the taxonomy of all amoebae, free living and endozoic, is much to be desired. = . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 Morris (1936) examined the problem so far as certain endozoic amoebae are concerned ; but the result of his study is not conclusive, for it omitted from consideration certain other endozoic amoebae that would also have to have the status of sub-genera of Hndamoeba, according to his treatment. The ' purpose of the present paper is nomenclatorial : it is an attempt to show that the word Entamoeba should remain available for a genus of which Ent. coli is the type. Opinion 99 declares that those of us who think that the species coli and similar forms do not belong in the same genus as blattae cannot use the name Entamoeba for that different genus. There are two grounds upon which that declaration is based. One of them is that Entamoeba is a homonym of En- damoeba—that the two words are not sufficiently different from one another in orthography to be usable as separate words. The other is that Entamoeba has the same type species as Endamoeba, and therefore falls as a synonym. The latter decision is the only one given in the summary of Opinion 99; it is not necessary that it should be rendered after the generic name has been dismissed as a homonym, so evidently it is intended to provide a reserve in case of doubt. That doubt certainly exists (Dobell, 1938). Obviously we are not here concerned with whether the words have the same meaning or not, but with ’ whether one word is the same word as the other. There is a difference between inadvertent interchange of two names that have a status in zoological nomen- clature, and the use synonymously of such words as endoplasm and entoplasm or endoderm and entoderm. There is nothing in the articles of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature that justifies the conclusion that Entamoeba must be rejected as a homonym. Certainly Chatton’s statement, although cited as authoritative by Stiles, does not constitute justification ; it is merely am assertion in a one-line footnote, unsupported by reference to the Rules or anything else. It is only in the argument for Opinion 99 that evidence is given, but that evidence can as well be read in support of the retention of the two names as different. Jordan’s report in the Opinion states that they come in the category of names of which the spelling in Latin varied to a slight _ extent and which the Rules of Nomenclature do not accept as different. His reference is to Article 35, in which precise differences are given by which specific names of the same origin and meaning are insufficiently distinguished. There seems to be no indication that Article 35 is intended to establish a general _ eategory allowing interpretation of other differences than those specified ; _ and in that Article there is nothing whatever about the sort of difference that ~ exists between the words Endamoeba and Entamoeba. Furthermore, there is evidence in Opinion 99 itself that the two words are not necessarily of the same origin, and that would exclude them from consideration under the rules given in Article 35. ____ Article 35 deals only with specific names, and it might seem possible that a _ different interpretation for generic names would-be allowed. Now, however, @ precise statement concerning differences in generic names has been given (Opinion 147, 1943). A generic name of the same origin and meaning as a 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature previously published generic name is to be rejected as a homonym of the said name if it is distinguished therefrom only by certain specified differences which are the same as the ones given for specific names in Article 35. Opinion 99 was not mentioned by the Commission in the rendering of Opinion 147, although it dealt with the subject that was being considered. It is not possible to find any definite reason in the Code, or any valid evidence in Opinion 99, for rejection of Entamoeba as a homonym ; but the recommen- dation in Article 36 can, as Taliaferro remarked, be evoked in support of retention of both names. These facts have already been discussed by Dobell (1938). . In Opinion 99 the consideration that is apparently regarded as the more important one, since it’alone is given in the summary, is that of synonymy— ~ that Entamoeba C. & B. is an absolute synonym (or objective synonym, Stiles and Boeck, 1923, p. 135) of Endamoeba Leidy, because the names follow their types, and the same species, H. blattae, is the type of each. When Stiles - presented the case so as to arrive at this conclusion, he changed his approach to the matter. In 1923 he evidently regarded Entamoeba as a homonym, in 1925 he designated it as a subjective synonym on the basis of the taxonomic assignment of its species, but in both papers he accepted E. hominis=coli as type of Entamoeba C. & B. by subsequent designation by Brumpt, 1913. In Opinion 99, after stating that Brumpt’s action was the first type designation ~ in words, Stiles found it possible to interpret Chatton, 1912, as having desig- nated blattae as type of Entamoeba C. & B. Stiles did not make clear the reason for this interpretation, except in that he cited Opinion 6 in support of it. Entamoeba C. & B., 1895, is analogous to the hypothetical Genus A Linnaeus, 1758, in Opinion 6, in that when proposed it contained two species, which we now know as coli and blattae. Casagrandi and Barbagallo did not indicate which was the type. Opinion 6 declares that when an author has removed one of the two species to another monotypic genus, leaving only one species in the first genus, he is to be construed as having fixed the type of the first genus. Jordan’s report in Opinion 99 follows the parallel exactly, crediting Chatton with having removed coli from Entamoeba C. & B. to the genus Léschia, thereby leaving blattae as the type of Entamoeba. If that is so, there is probably no doubt about the validity of the conclusion ; but I think it is not true that that Chatton really dealt with Entamoeba C. & B. in making the supposed division. In every place in the three papers that Chatton wrote Entamoeba Leidy he was simply making a mistake for Endamoeba Leidy. Other authors before him who included blattae, with or without other amoebae, in Entamoeba C. & B. were also making a simple error; they should have used Endamoeba Leidy. The acts of Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire were on Endamoeba Leidy, given by mistake as Entamoeba Leidy, but not corresponding to Entamoeba C. & B. Chatton (1910) grouped various amoebae in this “ Entamoeba Leidy.”’ Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire (1912) did not agree with that grouping, and removed coli and other species from it, leaving only blattae. That made no change in Tee > reiterate jetncigicrmtcaeiuens Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 the situation, except to restore it as it was originally. The revision was of the group concept authors had held of “‘ Entamoeba Leidy ” =Endamoeba Leidy, not of that genus itself, which was already attached to its type species. The synonym argument in Opinion 99 depends upon crediting Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire or Chatton with having comprehended Entamoeba C. & B. in what they did with “ Entamoeba Leidy ” =Endamoeba Leidy. Stiles’ para- graph “d” in the argument, puts it: “ Chatton’s paper (1912, Bull. Zool. France, p. 113) is to be interpreted as designating blattae as type of “ Entamoeba”? 1897(=1895) [emendation of Endamoeba, but obviously con- strued as identical with Hntamoeba].” (Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire had priority in this matter, and the page reference is wrong.) But Chatton’s “‘emendation of ’’ (rather, error for) Endamoeba was ‘‘ Entamoeba Leidy,” not “ Entamoeba 1897 (=1895)” ; Entamoeba C. & B., 1895, was not an emendation, but a separately proposed word. Stiles’ word “ obviously ” could have reference only to Chatton’s opinion (1912) that the two words are orthographic variants, and therefore identical. Thus we return to the question of whether or not it is to be admitted that Entamoeba is a homonym of Endamoeba ; and in conse- quence it appears to me that the whole argument of Opinion 99 stands or falls with the decision about the homonym question, in spite of the fact that the summary neglects that decision. The summary of Opinion 99 presents the nomenclatorial treatment accorded Entamoeba C. & B. by Brumpt in 1913 as opposed to and invalidated by the prior treatment of that genus in the 1912 paper. On the contrary, however, it seems that Chatton and Brumpt had then exactly the same understanding of Casagrandi and Barbagallo’s genus. In the historical account given above in 1897 Casagrandi and Barbagallo applied the name Entamoeba to intestinal amoebae of vertebrates, and the statement by Chatton (1912, p. 111) that those authors applied the name to a human amoeba. Those are the only references in the 1912 papers to the correct and original use of Entamoeba. Brumpt, who in 1913 wrote ‘‘ Entamoeba Leidy,” had adopted the nomenclature of amoebae used by Chatton in 1910. In the footnote that was accepted by Stiles as constituting the type designation he simply gave a different wording of what the 1912 authors had pointed out regarding the amoeba for which the genus Entamoeba C. & B. had been proposed ; but in that wording, and in printing the name “‘ £. hominis synonyme de E. coli” he was more specific. Brumpt has more recently used both Endamoeba and Entamoeba ; and it is likely that the 1912 authors would have used Casagrandi and Barbagallo’s name for the species coli and other amoebae of vertebrates instead of Léschia except for the fact that they considered Endamoeba and Entamoeba to be orthographic _ variants. Despite the fact that Chatton and Brumpt evidently had the same _ understanding of Entamoeba C. & B., Stiles found it possible to give the interpre- _ tation that Chatton had designated blattae as its type before Brumpt designated coli as its type. Yet the only difference in the treatment the two authors _ gave the genus is that the former did not print the species name, whereas the - latter did so. Brumpt, therefore, was not considered to have comprehended _ Entamoeba C. & B. in “ Entamoeba Leidy,” as regards type designation, whereas Chatton was considered to have done so. The interpretation given in this part of the argument in Opinion 99 is obviously greatly strained. 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CONCLUSION Opinion 99 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature does not constitute proof that Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, cannot be used as a generic name. Its argument rests on two points: that Entamoeba is a homonym of Endamoeba ; and that blattae is the type species of both, so that Entamoeba falls also as a synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. The latter point, which is the only one brought out in the summary of Opinion 99, is not acceptable: it rests on the interpretation that Entamoeba is a homonym of the earlier name. The Opinion asserts, but does not demonstrate, that it is a homonym ; and there is nothing elsewhere in the Rules or Opinions that warrants the assertion. It is appropriate to place the species colt and blattae in separate genera ; and it is considered that Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, is available as.a generic name for coli and congeneric species at the same time that Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, is used for blattae and congeneric species. References Alexeieff, A, 1912. Sur les caractéres cytologiques et la systématique des Amibes du group limax (Naegleria nov. gen. et Hartmannia nov. gen.) et des Amibes parasites des vertébrés (Proctamoeba nov. gen.). Bull Soc. zool. France 37 : 55-74. Brumpt, E., 1913. Précis de parasitologie, 2. éd. Paris, Masson et Cie. Brumpt, E., 1922. Idem, 3. éd. Brumpt, E., 1927. Idem, 4. éd. Brumpt, H., 1936. Idem, 5. éd. Casagrandi, O. and Barbagallo, P., 1895. Ricerche biologiche e cliniche sull, Amoeba colt (Losch). Seconda ed ultima nota preliminare. Bol. Accad. Gioenia Sci. nat. Catania (n.s.) 41 : 7-19. Casagrandi, O. and Barbagallo, P., 1897. Entamoeba hominis s. Amoeba coli (Lésch). Studio biologico e clinico. Annali d’Igiene sperimentale 7 : 103- 166. se eee oe U Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 Chatton, E., 1910. Essai sur la structure du noyau et la mitose chez les Amoebiens. Faits et théories. Arch. Zool. expér. et gén. (5) 5 : 267-337. Chatton, E., 1912. Sur quelques genres d’Amibes libres et parasites. Syno- nymies, homonymie, impropriété. Bull. Soc. zool. France 37 : 109-115. Chatton, E. and Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912. Amibe limax (Vahlkampfia n. gen.) dans l’intestin humain. Son importance pour Vinterprétation des amibes de culture. Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 5 : 135-143. Cleveland, L. R. and Sanders, E. P., 1930. Encystation, multiple. fission without encystment, excystation, metacystic development and variation, in a pure line and nine strains of Entamoeba histolytica. Arch. Protistenk. 70 : 223-266. Craig, C. F., 1911. The parasitic amoebae of man. Philadelphia, Lippincott. Craig, C. F., 1926. A manual of the parasitic protozoa of man. Philadelphia, Lippincott. Craig, C. F., 1944. Review of Kudo: Manual of human protozoa. Amer. J. trop. Med. 24 : 330. . Dobell, C., 1919. The amoebae living in man. A zoological monograph. New York, Wm. Wood & Co. Dobell, C., 1938. Researches on the intestinal protozoa of monkeys and man. IX. The life-history of Entamoeba coli, with special reference to metacystic development. Parasitology 30 : 195-238. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1910, Opinion 6. In case of a genus A Linnaeus, 1758, with two species, Ab and Ac. Smith- sonian Publication 1938 : 7-9. Reprinted with editorial notes 1943 Opinions and Declarations rendered by the Int. Com. zool. Nomencl, 1 - 127-138. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1928, Opinion 99. Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, vs. Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, Smithson. Misc. Collect. 73 (5): 4-8. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1943, Opinion 147. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 34 of the Inter. national Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning as names previously published. Opinions and Declarations rendered by the Int. Com. zool. Nomenel. 2 : 123-132. Kudo, R. R., 1939. Protozoology. Springfield, Thomas. Kudo, R. R., 1944. Manual of human protozoa. Springfield, Thomas. Leidy, J., 1879a. Fresh-water rhizopods of North America. Rep. U. 8. Geol. Surv. of Territories 12: i-xi, 1-324. Leidy, J., 1879b. On Amoeba blattae. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Philadelphia - 31: 204-205. 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Meglitsch, P. A., 1940. Cytological observations on Endamoeba blattae, Illinois biol. Monogr. 17 (4) : 1-146. Morris, §., 1936. Studies of Hndamoeba blattae (Biitschli). J. Morphol. 59 : 225-263. . Pearse, A. S., 1942. Introduction to parasitology. Springfield, Thomas. Reichenow, E., 1928. Doflein’s Lehrbuch der Protozoenkunde, ed. 5, II. Teil. Jena, Fischer. Schaudinn, F., 1903. Untersuchungen iiber die Fortpflanzung einiger Rhizo- poden. Arb. K. Gsndhsamte. 19 : 547-576. Stiles, C. W. and Boeck, W. C., 1923. The sistenetatertil status of certain protozoa parasitic in man. Bull. Hyg. Lab. U.S. Pub. Health Serv.. 133 : 92-183. Stiles, C. W. and Hassall, A., 1925. Key-catalogue of the protozoa reported for man. Bull. Hyg. Lab. U.S. Pub. Health Serv. 140 : i-iv, 1-63. Wenrich, D. H., 1940. Nuclear structure and nuclear division in the trophic stages of Endamoeba muris (Protozoa Sarcodina). J. Morphol., 66: 215- 239. Wenrich, D. H., 1944. Studies on Dientamoeba fragilis (Protozoa). IV. Further observations, with an outline of present-day knowledge of this species. J. Parasitol. 30 : 322-338. Wenyon, C. M., 1926. Protozoology. New York, Wm. Wood & Co. - | | i all a id ke dS x e Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 ON THE PROBLEMS EMBRACED IN “OPINION” 99 (RELATING TO THE NAMES “ ENDAMOEBA ” LEIDY, 1879, AND “ENTAMOEBA” CASAGRANDI & BARBAGALLO, 1895) RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE By ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY, Ph.D., M.D. Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (Commission's reference Z.N.(S.)185) I. Introduction. Recently Professor Harold Kirby (1945) has written an able critique of the decisions embodied in Opinion 99 rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature (1928). He has concluded that, contrary to certain of these decisions (1) Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, cannot be regarded as a homonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879; and (2) the species with the trivial name bDlatiae of Biitschli (1878) should not, despite the conclusions embodied in Opinion 99, be regarded as the type species of both genera, but only of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. 2. I endorse Kirby’s thesis wholeheartedly, but I should hke to restate the problem in order to emphasize what I consider to be certain fallacies in Opinion 99, which are not altogether covered by Kirby, and to make certain further proposals. Opinion 99 is a remarkable collection of contradictions and apparent misinterpretations of the Régles and certain preceding Opinions, as I am prepared to show here. 3. Originally a draft of the present paper was submitted to Mr. Francis _ Hemming, Secretary of the International Commission, in 1946. Subsequently the author visited Mr. Hemming in August, 1948, and it was agreed between them that, in view of the extensive changes that the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, acting on the advice of the International Commission, brought about in the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique at the Paris Meetings of July, 1948, the paper should be examined in the light of any pertinent new decisions, revised, and submitted again. I have delayed doing this in anticipation of the publication of the “ Official Records of Pro- ceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their Session, held in Paris in July, 1948.’ Now that this has been done in Volume 4 of The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, I have been able to redraft the present paper and am resubmitting it herewith. 4. One of the decisions taken by the International Commission at Paris was that Opinion 99 was to be considered sub judice and that specialists were _ to be invited “to communicate to the Commission their views on the action _ to be taken by way of confirming, modifying or reversing the decisions recorded in [the Opinion] ” (see 1950, Bull, zool,. Nomencl. 4 ; 337-338). This was done 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on the basis of the recognition by the Secretary to the International Com- mission that Opinion 99 was “ very poor”’ and should be reconsidered (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3: 128). It is, therefore, particularly appropriate that the present paper be tendered for publication. 5. Moreover, it will be evident from the ensuing sections of this paper that it is of vital importance to the stability of the names of certain genera and species of amoebae parasitic in Man and other animals, that the Inter- national Commission not only revise Opinion 99, but consider such additional problems not originally raised therein as must be solved in order to give permanancy to the names of these parasites. This will require the exercise of the plenary powers to secure certain names and the placing of these and other names in the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,” and the “ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology,” as provided for at Paris (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 267-271, 333-335). 6. To aid both in the revision of Opinion 99 and in the realization of stability for the names applied to important enteric amoebae, the present paper is organized into several sections : (I) the present introduction ; (II) the historical background of Opinion 99 ; (III) and (IV) analyses of the summary and body, respectively, of Opinion 99; (V) the status of the trivial names coli of Grassi (1879) and /astolytica of Schaudinn (1903) as applied to certain amoebae of Man; and (VI) the status of the generic names Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and certain others applied to enteric amoebae. Finally, in section (VII) are summarized the conclusions drawn from the studies of the preceding sections. II. Historical Background of “‘ Opinion ”’ 99. 7. Opinion 99 is entitled ‘‘ Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, vs. Entamoeba Casa- grandi and Barbagallo, 1895.’ Its summary reads as follows: ‘‘ Entamoeba 1895, with blattae as type by subsequent (1912) designation, is absolute synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type blattae, and invalidates Entamoeba 1895, type by subsequent (1913) designation hominis=colt.” 8. To recapitulate briefly, the following are the principal historical facts* of the case treated by Opinion 99, many of which were not, however, con- sidered in the Opinion : (i) Lésch (1875) described in detail the clinical picture and lesions resulting from an amoebic infection in the large bowel of a young Russian and also provided a description (pp, 203-207) and figures (Pl. x, figs. 1-3), of the causative organism from which it is quite evident that he was dealing with the species now generally called Entamoeba, or Endamoeba, histolytica. To this form he gave the *For a more detailed history the excellent monograph by Dobell (1919) should be con- sulted—also the less lucid, although more exhaustive, survey of Stiles and Boeck (1923). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 name Amoeba coli ( : 208). (ii) Biitschli (1878 : 273-277) described a new species, Amoeba blattae, ’ from the gut of the oriental roach, Blatta orientalis Linnaeus, ; 1758—an insect still known by that name. (iii) Grassi (1879) described amoebae from human faeces and identified § them (p. 445) as representing the same species as observed by ? Lésch (1875). However, in the opinion of Dobell (1919) Grassi dealt primarily with the species now generally known as Entamoeba, or Endamoeba, coli, although some individuals, at least, of F. histolytica were apparently also seen. (iv) Leidy (1879 : 300) formed the new genus Endamoeba for the single species, hence type species (by monotypy: Article 30(c) of the current Regles}) Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878. (v) Casagrandi and Barbagallo (1895 : 18) in.a study of an intestinal amoeba of Man, which they called “‘ Amoeba coli Loésch,”’ erected a new genus Entamoeba in apparent ignorance of the existence of the name of Endamoeba** Leidy, 1879. In it they placed “Amoeba coli (Losch)” and “ Amoeba blattarum (Biitschli)” [‘‘ Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878]. No type species was designated. It is evident from their paper that these authors were dealing not with Lésch’s Amoeba coli, but with Grassi’s—the species today known generally as E. coli. They did not themselves form the combination Entamoeba coli, although it is credited to them by Dobell (1919) ; actually this was later done by Schaudinn (1903). In a subsequent paper they (Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1897 : 103) renamed this species Hntamoeba hominis. (vi) Schaudinn (1903) was responsible for fixing the usage of the trivial names now almost universally employed for the two species of amoebae in humans, originally designated Amoeba coli by Lésch (1875) and Amoeba coli by Grassi (1879)—what may aptly. be termed the dysenteric and large nondysenteric amoebae of Man, respectively. As Dobell (1919) has pointed out, by far the happiest solution would have been for Schaudinn to accept Lésch’s name for the dysenteric species, as would have been correct, and, in view { The most recent presumably official edition of the Reégles appeared in 1929 in the publica- tion of the X [1927] International Congress of Zoology at Budapest (Int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl- 1929). A new official edition is now in preparation based on extensive changes adopted by the XIII International Congress of Zoology at its Paris Meeting in 1948, acting on the advice of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ** In base a tutti questi dati, anzi, riteniamo necessario tornare sulla classifica delle Amebe, stabilendone un nuovo genere, che proponiamo di chiamare Entamoeba e vi collochiamo Subito Amoeba coli (Lésch), e l’Amoeba blattarum (Biitschli). 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the fact that Grassi’s name was a homonym of Lésch’s, to take the next available name, Entamoeba hominis Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1897, for the nondysenteric species. His observa- tions on morphology as well as nomenclature were on several counts erroneous and have been severely and justifiably criticized by Dobell. His nomenelatorial conclusions were that the non- dysenteric species should be called “ Entamoeba coli Lésch emend. Schaudinn ”’ (:564) and that the dysenteric species should be given a new name, for which he proposed ‘“‘ Entamoeba histolytica” (:564, 570). In so doing, he accepted the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, for both species. Schaudinn’s prestige was such that his determinations became entrenched in the literature, and to-day the trivial names, at least, dominate all fields concerned with amoebae in Man. ‘ ee ee ee ee ee ee ee il (vii) Lithe (1909: 421) erected the new genus Poneramoeba for the single species, Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, from Man ; this he specifically designated as the type species of his new genus. It was the next new genus after Entamoeba Casagrandi and Bar- bagallo, 1895, erected or used for amoebae in the vertebrate digestive tract. (viii) Chatton (1910 : 282-284) placed in a genus “ Entamoeba Leidy - (1879) ” seven supposed species. ‘‘ Entamoeba coli (Lésch) 1875” [=Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879], ‘“‘ #. blattae (Biitschli) 1878” ; “ F. ranarum (Grassi) 1881” “EF. muris (Grassi) 1881”; E. buccalis Prowazek, 1904; E. histolytica Schaudin, 1903; and “E. tetragena Viereck 1906=E. africana Hartmann 1908” [=E. histolytica]. The only mention of Casagrandi and Bar- bagallo’s work appearing in Chatton’s paper was in a footnote to the effect that ‘““ Entamoeba’ had been incorrectly assigned by Doflein (1909) to the authorship of the Italian workers.* Chatton did not cite any species as the type species of his “ Entamoeba,” nor did he mention the spelling ““ Endamoeba” used by Leidy. (ix) Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire (1912 : 142) removed the amoebae of the digestive tract of vertebrates from the genus “ Entamoeba Leidy ” into a new genus Léschia, stating that only the species. originally called Amoeba blattae by Biitschli (1878) should remain in Leidy’s genus. To Léschia they transferred the following four species from Entamoeba : “ E. coli Lésch ”’ [=Grassi], “ E. tetragena Viereck ”’ [=histolytica Schaudinn], “ #. ranarum Grassi,” and “ B. muris Grassi,’ and for the forms with a tetragena-[=histo- lytica—] like nuclear picture they raised a new subgenus Viereckia) “ E. coli Lésch ”’ was designated as the type species of the nomino- est a tort que ein (1910 [=1909]) attribue la paternité du genre Entam a mar 1 a Doflein (1910 [=1909] ) bue la p ité du genre Z oeba 3 Casagrandi et Barbagallo (1897 [sic] ). ‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 257 typical subgenus, hence of the genus, Léschia.* They incorrectly claimed that Casagrandi and Barbagallo (1897) had applied Leidy’s genus to the amoebae of the vertebrate digestive tract. (x) Chatton (1912 : 111) republished the conclusions already expressed in his paper with Lalung-Bonnaire, but mentioned only “ Léschia coli’ and “ Viereckia tetragena”’ in the genus Léschia. For the first time he mentioned—in a footnote—the spelling Endamoeba,** but dismissed it as an orthographic variant. ] (xi) Brumpt (1913: 25) referred the amoebae of Man to the genus “ Entamoeba Leidy, 1879.” He also stated—in a footnote—that the same genus had been created in “ 1897 ” by Casagrandi and Barbagallo fort} “ EZ. colt.” / - (xii) Crawley (1913: 185) listed “ Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903 ” as the type species of the genus Entamoeba. (xii) Dobell (1919: 17-19) in a scholarly review of the nomenclature of the amoebae in Man accepted as valid for amoebae of the verte- brate digestive tract the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barba- gallo, 1895 (non Endamoeba Leidy, 1879), formally (: 18) selected as its type species “ Z. coli,” and included as congeneric with £. coli the species £. histolytica, among others. He confined the genus Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, to Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878. In later parts of his paper he reviewed in detail the nomenclatorial history of the species to-day generally known by the trivial names coli and histolytica. (xiv) Stiles and Boeck (1923: 121-150) exhaustively discussed the nomenclature of the dysenteric and nondysenteric amoebae of Man and dismissed ( : 124) Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, as a homonymt of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. Nevertheless they regarded Brumpt (1913) as having fixed the type species of the former as Entamoeba hominis [=Amoeba coli Grassi, 187 9], and they also recognized a separate nominal genus Entamoeba Chatton, *On pourra méme distinguer subgénériquement les Entamibes a 4 noyaux (type tetra- gena), des Entamibes & 8 noyaux (type coli), sous le nom de Viereckia n. subgen. + C’est Leidy qui a créé le genre Entamoeba pour l’amibe de la Blatte, et’ ce n’est qu’en 1897 que Casagrandi et Barbagallo ]’ont appliquée aux amibes intestinales des Vertebrés. - ** Avec la variante orthographique Endamoeba qui ne peut en aucune facon constituer un prétexte a conserver les deux noms simultanément. Tt Ce méme genre a été créé de nouveau en 1897 par Casagrandi et Barbagallo pour leur E. hominis, synonyme de E. coli. ‘ ; [Entamoeba 1895 is not available because of Endamoeba 1879.] 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1912 (overlooking Chatton’s 1910 paper and not recognizing the priority of Chatton and Lalung-Bonnaire’s paper) as an emen- dation of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, consequently with the same type species, Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878. They provisionally regarded Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878 (type species of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879—by monotypy), and Entamoeba hominis Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1897 [=Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879] as congeneric. The foregoing conclusions were essentially followed by Stiles and Hassall (1925), except that they listed Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, as a synonym rather than a homonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879. (xv) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 95 (1926) placed Hndamoeba Leidy, 1879, with type species Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1879 (by monotypy) on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.” Later the International Com- mission (1928) reviewed some of the facts given here under para- graphs (i) to (xiv), and published Opinion 99. After much in- decisive discussion it was finally concluded in the summary of the latter Opinion, that Chatton (1912) had selected a type species for ‘‘ Entamoeba 1895,” when he transferred Entamoeba coli and other species in vertebrates to the genus Léschia and thus left only Entamoeba blattae in the genus Entamoeba. This conclusion was presumably based on Opinion 6, which was invoked in the body of the Opinion. Obviously, it was not questioned whether Chatton actually was dealing with Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, when he supposedly fixed its type species. 9. I proposed herein to analyze in detail in Sections III and IV, on the summary and body of Opinion 99 respectively, the question of the selection of a type species for the genus Entamoeba Casagrandi and Barbagallo, 1895, and to show that from the historical facts it must be concluded that no one actually selected its type before Dobell (1919). III. Analysis of the Summary of “ Opinion” 99. 10. First of all it can be shown that the summary of the Opinion itself cannot be supported by the Régles and previous Opinions. The crux_of this summary is based upon one point in the general conclusions of the body of the Opinion, and in the report by Commissioner K. Jordan, which appears at the end of the discussion on the Opinion and was unanimously adopted by the Commissioners present at the Tenth International Congress of Zoology in Budapest, 1927. In this summary, as one can read in the quotation thereof already given, appears the following phrase: “ Entamoeba 1895, with blattae as type by subsequent designation (1912).” This is presumably based on the following statement in Jordan’s report (: 8, under “ A. Nomenclatorial Con- a PRR RP, x. Ping sur Pardre naturel des animaux . . . Paris, Schoell : 434, 1833 CURTIS British Entomology 10 : 461. 1840 WESTWOOD Synopsis of the genera of British insects 2 : 116. 1844 BLANCHARD Dictionnaire universel histoire naturelle . . . 3: 296. 1862 CURTIS British Entomology : 461. 1869 STAL Hemiptera Fabriciana : 11, 1900 KIRKALDY “On the nomenclature of the Rhynchota, Heteroptera and Auchenorrhynchous Homoptera.” Entomologist 33 : 27. 1900 KIRKALDY “On the nomenclature . of the genera of the Rhynchota.” Entomologist 33 : 263. 1906 KIRKALDY “ Leafhoppers and their natural enemies.” Bull. Hawaiian Sugar Pl. Assoc. Div. Ent.1: 379, 380. 1906 KIRKALDY “ Leafhoppers and their natural enemies.” Bull. Hawaiian Sugar Pl, Assoc. Div. Ent. 1 : 379. 1910 SCHMIDT “Neue Gattungen und Arten der Subfamilie Cercopinae .. .” Arch. Nat. 76 : 103. have been selected by the author, and in the work, specified in Col. (2). (3) C. spumaria Fabricius. . spumaria Fabricius. sanguinolenta Fabricius. C. sanguinolenta Linnaeus. C. vulnerata Rossi. C. sanguinolenta Fabricius, C. sanguinolenta Linnaeus, C. C. carnifex Fabricius, spumaria Linnaeus, spumaria Linnaeus. spumaria Linnaeus, - carnifex Fabricius, - carnifex Fabricius. 304 Date of publication con- ‘taining a selection or alleged selection of a type species for Cercopis Fabricius, 1775. (1) 1912 ° 1912 1921 1921 1929 1933 eee | 1935 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Author who selected or who is alleged to have selected a type species for Cercopis Fabricius, 1775. (2) LALLEMAND “ Cercopidae.” Ins. 143 : 58. VAN DUZEE ‘“ Hemipterological gleanings.” Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci. 10 : 507. : JACOBI “ Kritische Bemerkungen uber die Cercopidae.” Arch. Nat. 87: 5, 7. JACOBI Ibid. : 47. Gen. HAUPT “ Neueinteilung der Homop- tera Cicadina . . .” Zool. Jahrb. Syst. Oek. 58 : 222. NAST “ Beitrage zur Morphologie und geographischen Verbreitung der mit- teleuropaischen und mediterranen Arten aus der sub-familie Cerco- pinae.” Ann. Mus. Zool. Polonici 10 : 7—13. METCALF and HORTON “ The Cer- copoidea of China.” Lingnam Sci. J. 13 : 417. HAUPT Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas 4: 154. Species selected or alleged to have been selected by the author, and in the work, specified in Col. (2). (3) . spumaria Fabricius. 4 . carnifex Fabricius. . spumaria Linnaeus, . carnifex Fabricius. . sanguinolenta Linnaeus. . sanguinolenta Scopoli. . spumaria Linnaeus, . sanguinolenta Scopoli. (continued from front wrapper) Entamoeba coli versus Endamoeba coli. By Harold Kirby (Department of Zoology, eee us iil i eat California, U.S.A.) On the problems embraced in Opinion 99 (relating to the names Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, and Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. By Ellsworth C. Dougherty, Ph.D., M.D. (Department of ees ee of si Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) . REPORT on the investigation of the nomenclatorial problems associated with the generic names Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, and Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 (Class Rhizopoda). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature On the question of the correct name for the type species of the genus Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida), with recommendations for the placing of certain names on the “ Official Lists.” By Ellsworth C. Dougherty, Ph.D., M.D. (Department of Zoology. aia ee of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) . On the question of the desirability of retaining the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Stephanurus dentatus) as the trivial name of the Kidney Worm of swine (Class Nematoda, Order Rhab- ditida): an Appeal to parasitologists’ for views on the question raised by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International “Commission on Zoological ‘Nomenclature a A Proposed use of the plenary powers to vary the type species of the genus Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), in order to validate existing nomenclatorial practice. By W. E. China, Sc.D. (Deputy Keeper, Depart- ment of ai agg British Museum cere History), London) . sie wa aia ot ae Proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the specific trivial name acuminata Ioff & Tiflov, 1946 (as published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata) as applied to the species numbered “‘ 68” by those authors (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera). By G. H. E. Hopkins, O.B.E., M.A. (British Museum eeaay Pion). Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts) .. : cd A ye aie Page 243 253 277 282 291 294 296 CONTENTS : (continued from overleaf) Application for the addition of the name Spirula Lamarck, 1799 Page (Class Cephalopoda) to the Official List of Generic Names in ae Zoology and matters incidental thereto. By the late R. Winckworth (London) .. us zy: _ so Soe Sais Application for a ruling that the Prodromo of S. A. Renier and the Prospetto della Classe det Vermi (dated 1804) prepared for inclusion in the Prodromo were not published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles. By L. R. Cox, Sc.D., F.R.S. (Department of Geology, British Museum : (Natural History), London) .. 299 >t Proposed addition of Cercopis Fabricius, 1775, and sanguinolenta Scopoli, 1763 (as published in the binominal combination Cicada sanguinolenta) to the Official Lists of Generic Names and Specific Trivial Names in Zoology glia my Wilhelm Wagner (Hamburg-Fuhlsbittel) = 301 Notice to Gubsaribers The concluding Part (Part 12) of Volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 (containing the Title Page, indexes, etc., for that volume) is being Mere . simultaneously with the present Part of Vol. 2. Form of Applications to the International Commission on Zoological — Nomenclature Zoologists submitting applications to the International Commission on Zoologica 4 Nomenclature are requested to submit those applications, in duplicate and typ ed, double-spaced, on one side of the page only, and with wide margins. Owing to lack of staff available for copying applications not submitted in the foregoing fot rm, preference for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature will necessari y be given to applications submitted in the form requested. . Full particulars of the bibliographical and other data required to be included i applications submitted to the International Commission will be found in the ‘ structions to Authors ” given on page 88 of Volume 1 of the present journal. | Publications of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclat The publications issued by the International Trust for Zoological Nomencla on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are on at the Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Que Gate, London, S.W.7. All communications on this subject should be addresse the Publications Officer. Printed in Great Britain by Metcuim AND Son, Ltp., Westminster, London 7 VOLUME 2. Part 11 28th September, 1951 pp. 305—352 28 ser an THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CONTENTS : Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of ie on gti es an Sigasees in the present Part oa 2 ; ee 305 Notice of possible use by the Siiecational Commision on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases we ae wh ae “e ea oa a 305 (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1951 Price Fifteen shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL a NOMENCLATURE a A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) B. Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re~ election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.) (President) (1st January 1944) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor Lodovico di Caporiacco (Italy) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (1st January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Dr. William Thomas Calman (United Kingdom) (1st January 1947) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (1st January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cahrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) - Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary: Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Honorary Archivist: Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Honorary Secretary and Managing Director: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., — C.B.E. & Honorary Registrar: Mr. A. S. Pankhurst Publications Officer: Mrs. C. Rosner E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust Secretariat of the Commission: 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1 a Offices of the Trust: 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 ‘ - : : | | | j Volume 2, Part 11 (pp. 305-352) 28th September, 1951 NOTICES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY 1. The following notices are given in pursuance of decisions taken, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4 : 51-56, 57-59), by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, July 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 5-13, 131). (a) Date of commencement by the international Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications pub-~ lished in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ” Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publica- tion in the Bulletin of the applications in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon any of the applications published in the present Part (vol. 2, Part 11) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so, in writing, to the Secretary to the Commission as quickly as possible and in any case in sufficient time to enable the communication in question to reach the Secretariat of the Commission before the expiry of the six-month period referred to above. (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases Noricz is hereby given that the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers is involved in applications published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in relation to the following names :— (1) Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed designation of type species for (Z.N.(S.)181). (2) Xtphosura Briinnich, 1771, proposed suppression of, and validation of Limulus Miller, 1785 (Class Merostomata) (Z.N.(S.)506). _ 2. In accordance with the procedure agreed upon at the Session held by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56), corresponding Notices have been sent to the journals “ Nature ” and “ Science.” . FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. _ 28th September, 1951. 306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REQUEST FOR A RULING THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF A MICROFILM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “ PUBLICATION ” FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE “REGLES ” Application submitted jointly by the JOINT COMMITTEE ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR PALEONTOLOGY IN AMERICA and by the NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)528) (Letter, with enclosures, dated 6th February 1951, signed jointly by Dr. G. Winston Sinclair (for the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America) and Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder (for the Nomenclature Committee, Society of Systematic Zoology).) We enclose a petition which we would ask you to lay before the Commission for their opinion, and which we would ask you also to publish in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. We also enclose a list of zoologists who, having seen the petition and studied it, have indicated in writing that they wish to be recorded as supporting it. Dwight Davis (Chicago Natural History Museum) wishes to be recorded as opposing the petition. Enclosure Within recent years there has arisen, at least in America, a commerce in copies of books or manuscripts photographically reproduced on 35mm, film, known as “ microfilm.” This practice was at first a convenience to scholars, who could thus obtain copies of rare or unobtainable works for study and refer- ence, and the microfilm was usually supplied by large libraries. From this beginning the practice has expanded, until now not only books but unpublished typescripts are being offered for sale, and microfilm is being advertised as a cheap and convenient method of “ publishing ” scholarly works which (because of their bulk or their lack of general appeal) would not be readily accepted by a regular publishing house. The distribution and offering for sale of such microfilm is held by some, including high academic officers, to constitute publication. We ask the Commission to rule that, regardless of its status for other purposes material which is available to the public only in the form of microfilm is not to be considered “ published ” within the meaning of the Regles. Should the Commission prefer to have before them a definite example, may we suggest that the following case be considered : In 1948 a paper entitled ‘‘ Pre-Traverse Devonian Pelecypods of Michigan,” by Aurele LaRocque, was offered for sale as “ University Microfilms Publication 1059,” consisting of a microfilm copy of a typescript and accompanying plates of photographs. This offering was advertised to an extensive mailing-list of libraries and others, and the paper has been available to the public in this form since 1948. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 2, Pt. 11. September, 1951 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307 In 1950 the same paper was issued in printed form as: Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Volume 7, No. 10, (pp. 271-366, 19 plates). In this paper (in both forms) are described three new genera and fourteen new species of pelecypods. We ask the Commission to rule that the names of these new taxonomic units are to be ignored until their appearance in printed form in 1950. Annex to Enclosure Annex to Enclosure. List of zoologists supporting the petition : Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America. Members individually polled and unanimous in support, viz. : Raymond C. Moore, University of Kansas, Lawrence A. 8. Romer, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass. David H. Dunkle, U.S. National Museum, Washington S. W. Muller, Stanford University, California J. Marvin Weller, Walker Museum, University of Chicago John B. Reeside, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D. L. Frizzell, Rolla, Missouri A. Myra Keen, Stanford University, California Katherine V. W. Palmer, Ithaca, New York J. Brookes Knight, U.S. National Museum, Washington John W. Wells, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York G. Winston Sinclair, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Individual zoologists in Chicago, in favour of the petition : Karl P. Schmidt Fritz Haas Bryan Patterson Rainer Zangerl Rupert Wenzel William Beecher Henry S. Dybas Robert H. Denison Robert F. Inger Emmett R. Blake Austin L. Rand Melvin A. Taylor, Jr. Colin Campbell Sanborn Eugene S. Richardson, Jr. 308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Nomenclature Committee, Society of Systematic Zoology Members, individ- ually polled ; all replies were approval : Ernst Mayr, American Museum Natural History Robert R. Miller, Univ. of Michigan Robert L. Usinger, Univ. of California John W. Wells, Cornell Univ. Ellsworth C. Dougherty, Univ. of California J. Brookes Knight, U.S. National Museum E. Raymond Hall, Univ. of Kansas Richard E. Blackwelder, U.S. National Museum. SUPPORT FOR THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOM- ENCLATURE FOR A RULING THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER ON MICROFILM DOES NOT CON- STITUTE PUBLICATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE “ REGLES” Communication received from the COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)528) (Letter dated 7th May, 1951) The Committee on Nomenclature of the Scientific Staff of the American Museum of Natural History has noted the petition addressed to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature concerning the publication of zoological names on microfilm. This Committee has unanimously approved of the measures proposed in the said petition (as published in Science, vol. 113, p. 466, 1951) and would join in the recommendation that the names in “Pre-Traverse Devonian Pelecypods of Michigan” by Aurele LaRoque, be ignored until their appearance in printed form in 1950, and that all material that is available to the public only in the form of microfilm be considered as not published within the meaning of the Régles. We would further suggest that it be specifically noted that subsequent authentic publication does not validate the earlier appearance on microfilm. Committee on Nomenclature : Mont A. Cazier Edwin H. Colbert Norman D. Newall George H. H. Tate John T. Zimmer (Chairman) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309 ON THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR A RULING THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER ON MICROFILM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “ PUBLICATION” FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE “REGLES” By CHARLES H. BLAKE (Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)528) (Letter dated 30th April, 1951) In Science for 20 April, 1951, I find a petition submitted by Messrs. Sinclair and Blackwelder. I find myself in opposition to the petition, at least in so far as it seems clear what grounds are used as a basis for it. (1) Letter press printing, or its sensible equivalents such as photo-offset, are not an integral or necessary part of publication. (2) All that seems necessary in publication is that copies shall be available to the interested public and that the copies shall all be clearly identical. Both of these qualifications appear to be inherent in the microfilm publication complained of. (3) It is evidently intended that these microfilms will constitute publications and are not restricted as manifolded manuscript. The petition itself notes that they are advertised to an extensive list of persons and libraries. (4) There appears to be no reason why the author of one of these microfilm publications should not distribute separates of it in the fashion of printed matter. (5) I can say from personal experience that no special reading machine is actually needed to handle microfilm ; any zoological laboratory can read it with an ordinary dissecting microscope. (6) Although not offered as an objection to microfilm in the present petition, I have been told that some object that the quality of the reproduction is not sufficiently high. Personal experience with microfilm indicates that, when properly made and properly enlarged in a magnifier, the figures are at least the ‘equal of many that find their way into the printed literature. 310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON THE REQUEST TO THE INTERNATIONAL COM- MISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR A RULING THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER ON MICROFILM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “ PUBLI- CATION” FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE “ REGLES” By E. H. BEHRE (Loutsana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, University Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)528) (Letter dated 4th May, 1951) The occasion of the petition to your body from the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, and the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology determines me to add my words to those of other zoologists. I wish most emphatically to support the petition of these Committees, the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America and the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology. I do not have, at hand, an immediate example of such clarity as is offered in the committees’ petition ; but I, myself, am confident that in the course of a short time such examples will appear in many specific fields. It is indeed a critical issue and one which should be clarified as promptly as possible before the resulting confusions accumulate in literature. eo ee a ee >a iw Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 311 SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL THAT THE DISTRI- BUTION OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS ON MICROFILMS SHOULD BE RULED AS NOT CONSTITUTING PUB- LICATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE “ REGLES ” By the “ ZOOLOGICAL RECORD ” COMMITTEE OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)528) (Letter dated 18th July, 1951, from Dr. Sheffield A. Neave, Chairman, ‘ Zoo- logical Record ’’ Committee of the Zoological Society of London) At its meeting held on Tuesday, 17th July, the “ Zoological Record ” Committee, the body entrusted by the Zoological Society of London with responsibility for supervising and determining on its behalf all matters relating to the publication of the Zoological Record, had under consideration the practice adopted on one or two recent occasions of giving publicity to new scientific names in microfilms containing the text of, or summaries of, as yet unpublished papers and, in particular, the question whether the giving of publicity to a new name by the distribution of microfilms in which it appears was to be regarded as constituting the publication of that name for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles Internationales and therefore as entitling the name in question to be recorded in the Zoological Record as having been published as from the date on which the microfilm containing that name was placed on sale or otherwise distributed. The “ Zoological Record ’’ Committee asked me, as its Chairman, to convey to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature their emphatic view that the distribution of microfilms containing new names is open to the strongest possible objection and represents a procedure which, if countenanced, could not fail to give rise to the most serious confusion in zoological nomen- clature. In the opinion of the Committee, it is highly important that this objectionable practice should be nipped in the bud before it has had time to give rise to serious difficulties. For the foregoing reasons the Committee adopted the following Resolution : The ‘“ Zoological Record’? Committee emphatically associates itself with the proposal which it understands has already been submitted jointly by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America and the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should at the earliest possible date give a ruling that the distribution in microfilm of a paper containing a new scientific name does not constitute the publication, for the purposes of the Régles Internationales, of the new names included in such microfilms and therefore that no scientific name given publicity by this means thereby acquires any rights under the Law of Priority. The “ Zoological Record ’’ Committee further recommends that the International Commission should at the same time adopt a “ Declara- tion ’’ strongly condemning the use of microfilms for giving publicity for 312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature unpublished scientific names and proposing that the International Congress of Zoology should be asked at Copenhagen in 1953 to insert a “ Recomman- dation” in the Régles in the foregoing sense, The meeting of the Zoological Record Committee at which the foregoing Resolutions were adopted was attended by: Dr. Sheffield A. Neave, C.M.G., O.B.E., D.Sc. (Chairman); Dr. William J. Hall, M.C., D.Sc. ; Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. ; Sir Norman Kinnear, C.B. ; Mr. Terence Morrison- Scott, D.S.C., M.A., M.Se.; Dr. Malcolm Smith, M.R.CS., LRP be. C. J. Stubblefield, D.Sc., F.R.S.; Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, Se.D. (Sccentifie Director and Deputy Secretary, Zoological Society of London). ON DR. L. R. COX’S PROPOSAL THAT S. A. RENIER’S “ PRODROMO” AND THE “ PROSPETTO DELLA CLASSE DEI VERMI” SHOULD BE DECLARED NOT TO HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE “REGLES” By the late R. WINCKWORTH (London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)432) (Extract from a letter dated 10th November, 1949) 1 want to thank you for your letter of 2nd November about Cox’s application? that the International Commission should give a ruling that 8. A. Renier’s Prodromo and the Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi was not published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles, and to say that I entirely concur with the proposals submitted. ~ 2 See pp. 299-300 of the present volume. =. i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIG- NATE TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENERA “NYSIUS” DALLAS, 1852, AND “‘ ARTHENEIS ” SPINOLA, 1837 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) By R. L. USINGER (United States Public Health Service) and R. I. SAILER (United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)181) China (1943, The Generic Names of British Insects, pt. 8 : 236), has shown that, under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature the name Nysius Dallas, 1852 (List Specimens Hem. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus. 2: 551), is not applicable to the genus universally known under that name. Through an oversight China cited Macroparius Stal, 1872 (Ofvers. VetenskAkad. Férhandl., Stockholm 29 : 43), as the correct name instead of Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Ess. Ins. Hémipt.: 250), which he listed as a synonym. In subsequent correspondence he agreed that the latter name must be employed for this genus of LyGaEIDAE. Unfortunately, this change would produce much confusion in literature of economic entomology since the name Nysius has become virtually synonymous with “false chinch bug” and “ Rutherglen bug,” two important pests of agricultural crops in Europe, North America, and Australia. It seems advisable, therefore, to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take appropriate action under suspension of the Rules in order to maintain Nysius for the genus of bugs to which it has long been applied. The change to either Macroparius or Artheneis is not made necessary through any misconception of the groups involved but simply through two unfortunate type selections. Distant (1903), ignoring the carefully defined subgenera of Stal (1874, (Enum. Hemipt. 4: 119-122,) and Horvath (1890, Rev. Ent. 9: 185-191) considered the genus Nysius as a unit and selected Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852, as its type species. N. zealandicus has pre- viously been set apart by Stal (in 1868 (K. svensk. Vetensk Akad. Hamndl., Stockholm (n.f.) 7 (No. 11):76) in a monotypic subgenus, Rhypodes, and Nysius was used for the cosmopolitan group including Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804 (Icon. Cimicum (4) : 149) and its allies. This did not exclude zealandicus from consideration as the type species of Nysius, since Dallas included it as one of the original species. Distant continued to use the name Nysius for the false chinch bug and its allies until his death. However, Evans (1929) raised most of the subgenera, including Rhypodes, to full genera. This should have precipitated the matter, because the name Nysius should have been used in place of Rhypodes, and the next oldest synonym should have been selected for Nysius auct. nec Dallas. However, Distant’s type selection was overlooked, and it remained for Dr. China to point out the nomenclatural inconsistency in 1943. Meanwhile, Kirkaldy (1909) noted that, as Spinola himself had suggested, Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (a common European genus and the type of the sub- family ARTHENEINAE), actually comprised two genera. Instead of following general usage and selecting Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837 (Ess. Ins. Hémipt. : 253) as the type species of Artheneis, Kirkaldy cited “(type eymordes), = Nysius Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 2, Pt. 11. September, 1951 314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dallas, 1852 ” [sic], thus confusing the Nyszus picture and necessitating a new name, T'yrrheneis, which he proposed (1909, Canad. Ent. 41:31) for Artheneis auct., nec Kirkaldy. It is not clear whether Kirkaldy intended to replace Nysius with Artheneis or not. He described many new species of Nysius in 1910 but the paper was published posthumously. We have seen no evidence in his published works or in his private collection to indicate that he contem- plated a change in the name Nysius. Oshanin (1912) ignored the earlier type fixations and selected type species designed to legalize current usage. Oshanin’s type selections were accepted by Van Duzee in his “ Check List ” (1916) and “‘ Catalogue ” (1917) and have been generally, though incorrectly, accepted by hemipterists up to the present time. Thus we are faced with a situation in which two authors selected type species which completely upset existing usage. The changes were entirely unnecessary and it seems clear that the authors had no intention of changing anything, because they failed to make the changes in their own subsequent work. Under the Rules their intentions are, of course, of no consequence, but considered in connection with the economic importance of the group and the universal acceptance of the names in current usage, it seems justifiable to consider action under suspension of the Rules which would permit retention of the name Nysius for the concept with which it has been universally associated. We, therefore, respectfully recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature exercise the plenary power conferred on it by the Internationa] Congress of Zoology and that the following actions be taken : (1) Reject Distant’s (1903) selection of Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852, in favour of Oshanin’s (1912) selection of Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804, as the type species of Nysius Dallas, 1852. (2) Reject Kirkaldy’s (1909) selection of Artheneis cymoides Spinola, 1837, in favour of Oshanin’s (1912) selection of Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837, as the type species of Artheneis Spinola, 1837. (3) Place the generic names Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837, with the respective type species specified above on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, together with the generic name Rhypodes Stal, 1868 (type species by mODOIYD Ys Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852). Conclusions Suppression of the Distant and Kirkaldy type selections will result in the following : Nysius Dallas, 1852, type species Lygaeus thyma Wolff, 1804 = Macroparius Stal, 1872, type species Heterogaster graminicola Kolenati, 1846. Rhypodes Stal, 1868, type species, Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852= Iygaeus clavicornis Fabricius, 1794, (Ent. syst. 4 : 169)=(Myersia Evans, 1929 Bull. ent. Res. 19: 353), type species Lygaeus clavicornis Fabricius, 1794. ; Artheneis Spinola, 1837, type species, Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837 = Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1900, type species Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837. ss f | : 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315 ON THE APPLICATION FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY. POWERS TO DESIGNATE TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENERA “ NYSIUS” DALLAS, 1852, AND “ ARTHENEIS ” SPINOLA, 1837 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR ROBERT L. USINGER AND DR. R. I. SAILER By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)181) 1. The application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature for the use of the plenary powers for the purpose of varying the type species of the genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837, prepared jointly by Professor Robert L. Usinger (University of California, Berkeley, California, at that time of the United States Public Health Service) and Dr. R. I. Sailor (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) was received on 15th February, 1945; under cover of a letter from Dr. Sailor, dated 12th January, 1945. This application had already (December 1944) been published by these authors (Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 46 : 260-262). Unfortunately, wartime and post- war difficulties, including an unavoidable change in the Commission’s printers, made it impossible to publish this application before the meeting of the Inter- national Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948, while since then it was necessary until recently to husband the financial resources of the Commission to secure the publication of the volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature containing the Paris records. 2. Three decisions taken by the Paris Congress slightly affect the present application, namely the establishment of the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology and the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Under the first of those decisions there are to be inscribed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, among other trivial names, the trivial names of the type species of each genus, the name of which is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, except where such a trivial name is not the oldest available trivial] name for the species in question. In such a case the oldest such trivial name is to be placed on the Official List in lieu of the trivial name of the nominal species which is the type species of the genus concerned (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 269-271, 283-284). Under the second of these decisions, there are to be added to the Official Index names suppressed by the Commission or declared by the Commission to be invalid. Under the third of these decisions, it is necessary now to record the gender of every generic name placed on the Official List. 3. Applying these decisions to the present case, we find that, if the Com- mission approve the proposals set forth in Professor Usinger’s and Dr. Sailor’s application, the trivial names thymi Wolff, 1804 (as published in the binominal _ combination Lygaeus thymi) (which in that event will have become the type species of Nysius Dallas, 1852) and foveolata Spinola, 1837 (as published in 316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the bominal combination Artheneis foveolata) (which in that event will have become the type species of Artheneis Spinola, 1837) will require to be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. The trivial name (zealandicus Dallas, 1852, as published in the binominal combination Nysius zealandicus) of the type species of Rhypodes Stal, 1868, will not be added to the Official Inst, since it is not regarded by specialists as the oldest available trivial name for the species in question ; the later name clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (as published in the binominal combination Lygaeus clavicornis), that being, as Professor Usinger and Dr. Sailor explain, the trivial name now regarded by specialists as the oldest such name either subjectively or objectively available for the species in question, will, however, need to be placed on the Official Inst. Under the decision (under the plenary powers) recommended by Professor Usinger and Dr. Sailor, the generic name Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1909, will become an objective junior synonym of Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (the two genera having the same species as their respective type species) and will need therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. In their application Professor Usinger and Dr. Sailor point out that the generic name Myersia Evans, 1929 (Bull. ent. Res. 19 : 353) is a subjective junior synonym of Rhypodes Stal, 1868. In addition, it may be noted that the name Myersia Evans, 1929, is a junior homonym of Myersia Viereck, 1912 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 43 (No. 1942) : 575); as such, it should therefore also be placed on the Official Index. 4. As regards the form of action under the plenary powers which would be necessary to secure the objects sought by Professor Usinger and Dr. Sailor, it may be recalled that at its Session held in Lisbon in 1935 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature took a decision on procedure in cases of this kind, when considering a long list of applications relating to the type species of genera in the Order Hymenoptera submitted by Professor J. Chester Bradley (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27-30). In view of the risk that, con- cealed in the literature there might be some undetected type selection which, if not suppressed, might nullify the result sought to be obtained by the use of the plenary powers, if those powers were to be used solely to suppress some type designation or type selection that it was known would create con- fusion unless suppressed, the Commission formed the conclusion that it would be preferable to set aside all type selections made prior to the decision in question and itself to designate whatever species it was desired should be the type species of the genera in question. The advantages of this procedure are so clear that it has since become the standard practice in all cases of this kind. 5. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it may be convenient to summarise as follows the action which the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature would need to take, in the event of its deciding to meet the substance of the application submitted to it in this matter, namely :— (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all type selections for the under- mentioned geriera made prior to the decision now proposed to be 7 | ’ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317 taken and to designate the species specified below to be the type species of the genera concerned :— Name of genus Nominal species proposed to be designated as the type species of the genus specified in Col. (1) (1) (2) (a) Nysius Dallas, 1852 Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804 (6) Artheneis Spinola, 1837 Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837 (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Nysius Dallas, 1852 (gender of generic name: masculine) (type species, by designation, as proposed in (1) (a) above, under the plenary powers: Lygaeus thymi Wolff, 1804) ; (6) Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, by designation, as proposed in (1) (b) above, under the plenary powers: Artheneis foveolata Spinola, 1837) ; (c) Rhypodes Stal, 1868 (gender of generic name: masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trial Names in Zoology :— (a) thymt Wolff, 1804 (as published in the binominal combination Lygaeus thymi) (trivial name of species proposed, under (1) (a) above to be designated under the plenary powers as type species of Nysiuws Dallas, 1852) ; (6) foveolata Spinola, 1837 (as published in the binominal com- bination Artheneis foveolata) (trivial name of species proposed, under (1) (b) above, to be designated under the plenary powers as type species of Artheneis Spinola, 1837) ; (c) clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (as published in the binominal combination Lygaeus clavicornis) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1909 (an objective synonym of Artheneis Spinola, 1837, under the decision proposed in (1) (6) above) ; (b) Myersia Evans, 1929 (a junior homonym of Rhypodes Stal, 1868). 318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE TYPE SPECIES FOR “ NYSIUS ” DALLAS, 1852, AND “ ARTHENEIS ” SPINOLA, 1837 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) : SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR ROBERT L. USINGER AND DR. R. I. SAILER By W. E. CHINA, Sc.D. (Deputy Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)181) (Enclosure to a letter dated 30th May, 1951) In my paper on the generic names of the British Heteroptera (1943, The gen. Names brit. Ins. (8) : 237) I pointed out (Note 1 to genus 2) that Distant (1903, Faun. brit. India, Rhyn. 2:17) was the first author validly to fix the type species of the genus Nysius Dallas, 1852 (List Spec. hemipt. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus. 2:551). In consequence the generic name Rhypodes Stal, 1868 (with type species Nysius zealandicus Dallas) became a synonym of Nysius Dallas, 1852, while Nysiws auctt. nec Dallas had to take the next available name. By an extraordinary lapsus, I selected the relatively modern name Macroparius Stal, 1872 (type species : Heterogaster [sic] graminicola Kolenati), leaving the much older name Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (type species : Arthenets cymoides Spinola) as a synonym. By this mistaken sinking of Arthenevs under Macroparius, I overlooked the serious consequences of transferring the type genus of the Lygaeid subfamily aRTHENEINAE to another subfamily (LYGAEINAE) and even kept the subfamily name ARTHENEINAE on page 238. . The fact that the old genus Artheneis (type species : A. foveolata Spinola) does not occur in Britain made this error possible, as in my paper I tended to skim over non- British genera. When my attention was drawn to this slip by Dr. R. L. Usinger, I at once agreed with him that the case would have to be submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in order to preserve the name of the type genus of the ARTHENEINAE and the well-known generic concept Nysius. This case was set out by Usinger and Sailer in 1944 (Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 46 (9) : 260-262) and I herewith express my complete con- currence with their opinions. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE ENTRY ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE NAME “LIMULUS” MULLER, 1785 (CLASS MEROSTOMATA\*) : PROPOSED CORRECTION poh AN ERROR IN “ OPINION ” By LEIF STORMER (Paleontologisk Institut, Oslo, Norway) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)506) 1. The object of the present applicationis to obtain from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the use of its plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing the generic name Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, in order thereby to render the name Limulus Miiller, 1785 (Class Merostomata*) the oldest available name for, and therefore the valid name of, the genus now habitually known by that name. From the point of view of the present applicant, who is engaged in preparing the chapter on Merostomata for the forthcoming international Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, the present case is one of exceptional urgency, for it is essential that a decision should be provided on the issue now submitted in time for it to be included in the relevant portion of the Treatise. It is particularly hoped, therefore, that it will be possible for the International Commission to reach a very early decision on the present application. 2. The facts of this case are as follows: In 1928, in Opinion 104 (Smithson. miscel. Coll. 73 (No. 5) : 25) the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Timulus Miller (O.F.), 1785 (type species, by monotypy: Monoculus poly- phemus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 634). This extremely well-known name, which was then in universal use—as it still is today—was regarded not only as a nomenclatorially valid name, but also as the oldest available name for the genus in question. In 1940, however, the late R. Winckworth submitted a request to the International Commission (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 113-117) for a ruling on the question whether in his Zoologiae Fundamenta (then believed - to have been published in 1772, but now known to have been first published in 1771) Briinnich had applied the principles of binominal nomenclature. Winckworth pointed out that, if the Commission were to give an affirmative answer to the foregoing question, there were a number of generic names which would in future rank for priority as from the Zool. Fund. and that one of these names, Xiphosura Briinnich (: 208), was older than, and would replace, the well-known name Limulus Miiller, 1785. At Paris in 1948 the International Commission ruled in favour of the availability of the names in Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta, holding the view that in this work Briinnich had duly complied with the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 307-310). * Or Class Arachnida. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 2, Pt. 11. September, 1951 320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3. Having reached this general decision, the International Commission turned to consider the new names in the Fundamenta of Briinnich, of which it now became necessary to take account. When the Commission reached the name Xiphosura Briinnich, the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming) drew attention to the fact that the acceptance of this generic name would be objectionable from two points of view (1950, loc. cit. 4: 311-312). First, that name, if accepted, would displace the time-honoured name Limulus Miiller, which, moreover, had already been on the Official List for twenty years ; second, the use of this word as a generic name would be confusing, in view of the fact that it was in general use as the name of the Order to which this genus belonged. The Commission did not feel able on that occasion to reach a decision on this question, but agreed that as soon as possible after the close of the Paris Congress consideration should be given to the question whether or not the plenary powers should be used for the purpose of validating the generic name Jimulus Miiller and thereby of regularising the position of that name on the Official List (1950, loc. cit. 4: 312). At the same time the Com- mission asked the Secretary to confer with specialists and, having done so, to submit a Report to the Commission for consideration. 4. It will be seen, therefore, that the subject of the present application is one to which the Commission has already given preliminary consideration and on which it has asked for the views of specialists. Thus, the present application, although prompted mainly by a different object, namely a desire to obtain a decision needed for the preparation of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, will serve also to provide a basis for the consideration of the question to which the Commission gave special consideration in Paris, namely whether the position on the Official List of the name Limulus Miiller should be regularised or, alter- natively, whether that name should be removed from the Official List, the name Xiphosura Briinnich being added thereto in its place. 5. As has already been explained, the generic name Limulus Miiller is in general use for the genus to which it was first applied by Miiller, one hundred and sixty-six years ago. It is true that in 1902 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 9 : 260) Pocock sought to replace the name Limulus Miiller by the older name Xiphosura Gronovius, 1764 (Zoophylac. gron. 2: 220) but this proposal of his won no support from other workers. Moreover, the Zoophylacium gronovianum, as from which Pocock dated the name Xiphosura was written by an author (Gronovius) who, though a so-called ‘“‘ binary” author, did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. At the time that Pocock wrote his paper there was room for argument whether a generic name published by such an author possessed any status in zoological nomenclature and this doubt persisted until 1948 when the International Congress of Zoology made it quite clear that such names possess no status in zoological nomenclature, by deleting the ambiguous expression “‘ nomenclature binaire ” from the Régles, inserting in its place the perfectly definite expression ‘‘ nomenclature binominale ” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63-66). It is now perfectly clear that the alleged generic name Xiphosura Gronovius, 1764, possesses no standing in zoological nomenclature. This objection does not however apply to the name Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, which is undoubtedly an available name. In view of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 321 current general acceptance of the generic name Limulus Miiller and the long period in which it has been in use, the desirability of promoting stability in nomenclature points strongly in favour of the preservation of the name Limulus Miiller, as against the name Xiphosura Briinnich. These considerations are enormously strengthened by the fact that for over twenty years the name Limulus Miiller has occupied an unchallenged position on the Official [Inst of Generic Names in Zoology. The arguments would need to be very strong to justify the dethronement of the name Limulus Miiller for the benefit of the unknown name Xiphosura Briinnich. In actual fact there are no arguments that can be advanced in favour of the overthrow of existing practice in this matter, apart from that based on the consideration that Briinnich’s name Xiphosura was published fourteen years before Miiller’s name Limulus. The Law of Priority possesses many important merits, but it is important always to remember that that Law was fashioned to promote stability and uniformity in nomenclature and consequently that the purpose of that Law is defeated if, by an unduly rigid application of its provisions, it is allowed to become an instrument for overturning well-established nomenclatorial practice. There are therefore very strong grounds in favour of the use by the International Commission of its plenary powers to preserve the name Limulus Miller. 6. This matter is not, however, the sole concern of the student of the taxonomy of the living and fossil forms concerned. For the name Limulus Miller is deeply embedded in the literature of the morphology and ontogeny of this interesting group, and to the workers in the field of applied biology changes of well-known names for narrow technical reasons of a purely nomen- clatorial character are peculiarly irritating and incomprehensible. Moreover, the International Congress of Zoology has given express directions that the interests of this class of worker are to be given special consideration by the International Commission in considering cases involving the possible displacement of well- known names (see, 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 234-235). For this reason also it is highly desirable that the International Commission should use its plenary powers to prevent the supercession of the name Limulus Miiller. 7. Finally, it must be observed that (as was pointed out in the discussion of this case in Paris) we are confronted here also with a reason of quite a different kind which would make it most undesirable that the name Xiphosura Briinnich should replace the name Limulus Miiller. This is because the word (Xiphosura) of which Briinnich’s name consists or derivatives of that word are commonly used to denote the higher categories to which the genus now known as Limulus belongs. Thus, according to the taxonomic view taken of the categories which should be recognised, the word “ Xiphosura” is in use as the name of the Sub-Class or Order concerned, while the word “ Xiphos- urida ” is used as the name of the Order. The Commission has ruled (in Opinion 102) that a generic name is not invalidated by the prior use, as an ordinal name, of the word of which that generic name is composed and this provision has since been incorporated in the Régles ; in deciding so to codify this pro- vision, the International Congress of Zoology decided also to insert a Recom- mandation deprecating the selection, as generic names, of words previously used as the names of units of Sub-Ordinal or higher category (1950, Bull. zool. ° 322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Nomencl. 4 : 164-165). In the present case, the use of the word “‘ Xiphosura ” as a generic name could not fail to give rise to confusion in the nomenclature of this group, and it is therfore extremely desirable from this point of view alone that the Commission should use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Xzphosura Briinnich, 1771. 8. For the reasons set forth above, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Xiphosura Briinnich, 1771, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) in view of (1) above, to confirm the generic name Limulus Miller, 1785, on the Official Inst of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the under-mentioned generic names or reputed generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :- (a) Xvphosura Gronovius, 1764 (an invalid name because published | by an author who did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature) ; (6) Xtphosura Briinnich, 1771 (a name proposed, under (1) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers) ; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zology the trivial name polyphemus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Monoculus polyphemus) (trivial name of the type species of Iamulus Miiller, 1785). : a | ON THE QUESTION WHETHER IT IS DESIRABLE THAT THE GENERIC NAME “ LIMULUS ” MULLER, 1785, SHOULD BE VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AND CONFIRMED IN ITS POSITION ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” By H. MUNRO FOX, F.R8. (London University, Bedford College, London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)506) (Extract from a letter dated 12th March, 1951) I am strongly of the opinion that the generic name Limulus Miiller should be validated and confirmed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The contrary course would be most undesirable both because of text-book usage and because of the undesirability of removing a name from the Offical List. E 7 if i > Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323 SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL THAT THE NAME “LIMULUS” MULLER; 1785 (CLASS MEROSTOMATA) SHOULD BE VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AND CONFIRMED ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” By CARL O. DUNBAR (Yale University, Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven, Conn., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)506) (Extract from a letter dated 23rd May, 1951) I think that both the Official List of Generic Names and the provision for the use of the plenary powers are desirable as a proper means of escape from unneces- sary confusion, sometimes produced by rigid application of the rule of priority, against which a good many systematists are inclined to rebel. It would seem to me therefore that the name Limulus Miiller, having been established by being placed on the Official List, cannot be displaced by Xiphosura Briinnich unless the Commission saw fit to take the positive action of removing it from the Last. As for the merits of the case, I believe no useful purpose would be gained by replacing the name Limulus which is so well established in the literature of the world. On the other hand, definite confusion would result from use of the name Xiphosura for a genus within the Order Xiphosura. 324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ON THE QUESTION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF “ GRY- PHAEA ” LAMARCK, 1801 (CLASS PELECYPODA) : COM- MENT ON PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY M. GILBERT RANSON, TOGETHER WITH A SUPPLEMENTARY REQUEST FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE TRIVIAL NAME “GRYPHUS” LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “ ANOMIA GRYPHUS ”) By L. R. COX, Se.D., F.R.S. (Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)365) 1. The present paper is submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in response to the recently published request by the Secretary to the Commission (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 239-240) for the views of interested specialists on the proposal relating to the determin- ation of the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck submitted to the Commission by M. Gilbert Ranson (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 168-170). 2. In that application (as in other previously published papers) M. Ranson concluded that the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck is the living Portuguese Oyster, Gryphaea angulata Lamark, 1819 (Hist. nat. Anum. sans Vertébr. 6 (1): 198). Arguments leading to a different conclusion, namely that the type species of this genus is Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 398), have, however, been advanced by various workers. These arguments are examined in the following paragraphs. 3. In 1898 (Tertiary Fauna Florida: 672) Dall (W. H.) showed: (a) that the name Gryphaea was first published by Lamarck in his Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres ; (b) that, although the name Gryphaea angulata was the first name there listed under Giryphaea, it was a nomen nudum and therefore that the species in question was not available for selection as type species; (c) that several of the names there cited under Gryphaea were founded with indications adequate to establish the identity of the species concerned, which therefore were available for subsequent selection as type species. The most important of those species is Gryphaea arcuata. Dall’s opinion that it was virtually selected as type species by Bosc in 1802 cannot, however, be accepted. Hertlein (1933, Trans. San Diego Soc. nat. Hist. 7: 278) referred to an alleged type selection of G. arcuata by Chenu in 1858. The earliest valid selection now known is however by Anton in 1839, who also selected G. arcuata. This fact seems first to have been recorded in print by H. B. Stenzel (1947, J. Paleont. — 21: 174). It is most improbable that an earlier selection of one of the species available form the Systéme will now be found. 4, Monsieur Ranson attempts to counter these arguments by maintaining that the Systéme is a work which should be disregarded in discussions on nomenclature. His reasons (if I understand him correctly) are : (a) that the — Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 2, Pt. 11. September, 1951 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325 International Commission rendered an Opinion (Opinion 78) the meaning of which was that citations of single species in this work under previously estab- lished genera cannot be accepted as type selections ; (b) that it was a provisional and premature work, as shown by the fact that Lamarck many years later (1819, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertebr. 6 (1) : 198-200) changed the names of some species included in it and certain references given under other species. He therefore considers that the first publication of Gryphaea which can be accepted was by Lamarck (1819, op. cit.) and that a selection of G. angulata was validly established as from that work as the type species by Children (1823). 5. Even though it means repeating much that has been said by previous writers, I will deal in turn with these other and points made by Monsieur Ranson. (a) Status of Lamarck’s “ Systéme” 6. This work unquestionably fulfils the necessary conditions to constitute a valid publication under the International Rules. The fact that it does not contain type selections is quite irrelevant to this question. Equally fallacious is the argument that the Systéme should be rejected because it was a premature work. Most systematists change their minds on some questions of synonymy and classification during the course of eighteen years, but their earlier works do not thereby lose their status as publications. If, nevertheless, it were to be held that the Systéme should be suppressed by the International Commission in order that G. angulata should become available for selection as type species of Giryphaea, it must be remembered that lengthy researches would have to be made on possible repercussions on the nomenclature of other genera included in that work. Nor should it be forgotten that between 1801 and 1819 the generic name Gryphaea was published by at least four other workers (Bosc, 1802; Roissy, 1805; J. Sowerby, 1815; Cuvier, 1817), from any of whose works G. arcuata (or its synonym G. wncurva J. Sowerby) would be available for selection as type species of the genus to the exclusion of the then still underscribed G. angulata. (b) Is the generic name “ Gryphaea” validly established in the “ Systéme ” ? 7. The answer to this question is that the name Gryphaea unquestionably was so established. A generic diagnosis was given and certain clearly recog- nizable nominal species were included in the genus. ae (c) Which of the species included under “ Gryphaea ” by Lamarck in the “Systéme” are clearly recognizable and hence available for subsequent selection as type species ? 8. The specific names included under Gryphaea in this work are listed below. Three are nomina nuda; the identity of the remainder rests on figures in older works. Since no diagnoses are given, no specimens preserved in the Lamarckian —— 326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Collection or in any collections known to have been studied by Lamarck can be accepted as the type specimens of these species. (*) Gryphaca angulata. No references to figures are given. The name is a nomen nudum. : (wi) Gryphaea suborbiculata. The references are to “‘ Knorr. Petrif. vol. 2’, part. 1, pl. 62. Encyclop. pl. 189, f. 3,4”. Lamarck’s references to Knorr are not bibliographically correct, as he renumbered Knorr’s plates owing to the peculiarity of Knorr’s original system of numbering. The plate referred to is that numbered “ D.II1c”, and can be identified by counting the plates from the beginning. G. suborbiculata, identified both by the figure in this plate and those of the Encyclopédie méthodique cited by Lamarck, is a well-known Upper Cretaceous species. Lamarck later re-named it Gryphaea columba and it is now referred to the genus Hxogyra Say, 1820. (tat) Gryphaea cymbula. The reference given is “ Knorr. Petrif. vol. 2°, part. 1, pl. 20, f. 7.” The plate number should read “ B. I. d”, in which fig. 7 shows the profile view of a large Jurassic Gryphaea. This appears to be a well-known Middle Liassic species, although Roller (1915, Fossiles nouveaux ou peu connus : 571) considers that it cannot be identified with certainty. (wv) Gryphaea arcuata. The references are “* Encyclop. pl. 189, f. 1, 2. Knorr. : Petrif. vol. 2°, p. 1, pl. 60, f. 1,2. Bourg. Petrif. no. 92.’ This species | needs careful consideration, and it seems desirable to fix its identity by selecting as lectotype the original of the most appropriate of the figures cited. The Encyclopédie méthodique figures were later omitted by Lamarck (1819, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 6 (1): 198) from those cited under G. arcuata and included under G. cymbium. The reference to Knorr has the objection that the plate cited should read “D. II a” (not 60). Knorr gave no localities for the specimens represented in figs. 1, 2 of this plate, but there is little doubt that fig. 1, at least, is of a specimen from the Lower Lias closely resembling that described by J. Sowerby in 1815 as Gryphaea incurva. Fig. 92 (on-pl. xv) of Bourguet’s Traité de Pétrifications (the third work cited by Lamarck) is of a very similar shell which undoubtedly came from the Lower Lias, although again no locality is given. Bourguet’s figured specimen is hereby selected as the lectotype of G. arcuata. So great, however, are the difficulties of specific identification in Liassic Gryphaeas, that it might be contended that a single figure, however good, of a specimen of unknown provenance is insufficient for subsequent recognition of a species. Some workers would, in fact, maintain that a species of this group could be identified only if its — precise locality and geological horizon were known, or, alternatively, a large series of specimens from the same bed available for statistical examination. Schifle (1929, Geol. paléont. Abh. (n.s.) 17(2): 26. pl. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327 2 figs. 7-17 ; pl. 3, figs. 1-4, 9), the latest reviser of Liassic oysters as a whole, however, regards G. arcuata as a species of moderately long geological range and broad synonymy, and Bourguet’s figured speci- men was undoubtedly a fully representative specimen of the species as conceived of by this author. Schiifle’s pl. 2, fig. 7, compares closely with Bourguet’s figure, as does his pl. 2, fig. 16 with Knorr’s pl. D. IIL a, fig. 1. Bouguet’s figure of the specimen which is now selected as lectotype, together with Knorr’s fig. 1, are, therefore, sufficient to establish the identity of G. arcuata as interpreted by Schafle, whose work, although not statistical, is as thorough as that of any other modern author. (v) Gryphaea africana. Lamarck’s reference is “* Encyclop. pl. 189, f. 5, 6”. These figures represent a well-characterized species which is abundant in the Cenomanian of Northern Africa and the Middle East and is now referred to Exogyra Say. (vt) Gryphaea carinata. The reference given by Lamarck is “ Bourg. Petrif. pl. 15, f. 89, 90.” There is some doubt as to which of several Cretaceous species of Exogyra is represented by these figures. The name G. carinata has not been generally adopted. (vit) Gryphaea latissima. Lamarck’s reference is “Bourg. Petrif. pl. 14, no. 84, 85.” This is the well-known Lower Cretaceous Ezxogyra to which the later names coulont (Defrance) and sinuata (J. Sowerby) have more frequently been applied. (vin) Gryphaea depressa. A nomen nudum. (tx) Gryphaea angustata. A nomen nudum. 9. From the above, it may be seen that, besides G. arcwata, three species of unquestionable identity (G. suborbiculata, G. africana, G. latissima), all now included in Ezogyra, were available for selection as the type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, together with two of doubtful identity (@. cymbula, G. carinata). (d) Is Anton’s selection of “G. arcuata” as type species of “ Gryphaea ” Lamarck without technical objections ? 10. On. pl. vi. of the preface to his Verzeichniss (1839) Anton refers to “ Gattungen (deren Typusart mit Versalbuchstaben gedruckt ist) ” and on p. 21 arcuata is the only species printed in small capitals under “ Untergattung Gryphaea Lam.” Throughout the work the type species of genera and subgenera are consistently indicated in this manner, and there seems to be no technical objection to this method of type selection. It is reasonable to maintain that a type selection for Gryphaea Lamarck without mention of the date of publica- tion of the genus must be accepted as referring to its earliest place of publication. 11. So far as I know, none of the other species available from the Systéme has ever been cited as the type species of Gryphaea. 328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (e) Is there evidence that it was Lamarck’s intention to found the genus “ Gryphaea ” primarily upon the living species “‘ G. angulata ” ? 12. Monsieur Ranson argues that such was Lamarck’s intention, as G. angulata was the first species listed by him under Gryphaea both in 1801 and in 1819. The generic diagnosis, however, states ‘‘ crochet . . . courbé en spirale involute ’’, whereas the umbonal region in G. angulata is not involute, but coiled in a posterior direction, as in Hxogyra. It further states “ animal inconnu”’ again suggesting that it was not the living European species that Lamarck had primarily in mind when writing the diagnosis. The actual generic name, more- over, was derived from the word “ gryphites ’’, which had long been applied to the fossil forms in non-binominal literature. (f) Does it seem desirable, to preserve current usage, for the Inter- national Commission to designate “G. angulata” Lamarck, 1819 as type species of “ Gryphaea ” under its plenary powers ? 13. The generic name Gryphaea has been employed for the group of incoiled fossil oysters from Jurassic deposits in countless text-books and general works for the past 125 years. Since 1885, when P. Fischer (Manuel de Conchyliologie : 927) cited G. angulata as an example of Giryphaea and proposed the new name Tiogryphaea for G. arcuata (although he referred this species to Giryphaea in the © explanation of his text-figure), the name Liogryphaea has become fairly current in French palaeontological literature, although it has gained little ground in other countries. In my card: index of Jurassic lamellibranchia extracted from the palaeontological literature of the whole world I have 1002 references under Gryphaea and 51 under Lnogryphaea, whether as distinct genera or as subgenera of Ostrea. This shows that the name Gryphaea is about 20 times more familiar to palaeontologists as a whole than Liogryphaea. In fact, if G. angulata were the valid type species of Gryphaea, there would be a strong case for the use of the plenary powers with a view to legalizing the use of this generic name for the fossil forms. Similar figures for the name of the Portuguese Oyster are not available. Except in France, however, this is usually known as Ostrea angulata Lamarck, the necessity for its generic separation from Ostrea not being generally admitted. It was catalogued as Ostrea (Crassostrea) angulata by the late Mr.” R. Winckworth in his “ List of the Marine Mollusca of the British Isles ” (1932,- J. Conchol. 19 : 240). Conclusions 14, In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is evident (1) that, under the Régles, Lamarck’s Systéme is an available work for the purposes of Article 25 (the Law of Priority) (the observations in regard to that work contained in the Commission’s Opinion 78 relating to an entirely different question, namely whether the method of citing specific names there adopted constitutes the selection, under Article 30, of the species so cited as the type species of the genera in which those species are severally placed), (2) that the specific name Gryphaea angulata, as cited in the Systéme is a nomen nudum and - in consequence that the species validly so named by Lamarck eighteen years later (in 1819) is ineligible for selection as the type species of Gryphaea Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 329 Lamarck, 1801, (3) that of the described species included in Gryphaea in 1801 the first to be selected by any worker (Anton, 1839) as the type species of that genus was the fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, (4) that in palaeonto- logical literature the name Gryphaea is firmly established as the name of the genus containing the Liassic species Gryphaea arcuata, that genus having been called by that name about twenty times as often as by the name Lnogryphaea Fischer, 1885, (Man. Conch. : 927 ), the name which that genus would bear, if G. angulata Lamarck, 1819, and not G. arcuata Lamarck, 1801, were the type species of Gryphaea, while it is only by French workers that the name Gryphaea has been habitually used for @. angulata, workers in other countries generally retaining that species in the genus Ostrea Linnaeus, 1758. 15. While I differ from Monsieur Ranson on the question of the species which, under the Régles, is the type species of the genus Gryphaea, I welcome his action in bringing this matter before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, for it is clearly desirable that a final decision on this matter should be obtained as soon as possible and an end thus put to the fruitless discussions which have been in progress for over sixty years. Before I formulate the action which I recommend that the International Commission should now take, in order finally to determine the type species of the genus Gryphaea, I must refer briefly to another question, which, though entirely unconnected with the question of the type species of this genus, has nevertheless a bearing on the action which it is desirable that the Commission should now take. I refer to the question whether the trivial name arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea arcuata) is the oldest available name for the species which is the type species of the genus Gryphaea. The name Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, is an available name both in the sense that it is not a junior homonym of any previously published specific name and in the sense that it is not a junior objective synonym of an earlier name applied to the same species. There is, however, an earlier name, which has hitherto been treated by almost all authors as a nomen dubiwm, which may have been based upon specimens of the same species as that upon which the nominal species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (as defined by the lectotype selection ‘made in paragraph 8(iv) above) was based. This nominal species is Anomia gryphus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 701), which was based upon a short diagnosis (which cannot be interpreted with certainty) and upon references to five older works, none of which, it may be noted, was among those similarly cited by Lamarck when publishing the name Gryphaea arcuata, though some illustrate that species, as here interpreted. Hanley (1855, Ipsa Lin. Conch. : 124), it is true, recorded that the Linnean Collection includes a worn Gryphaea bearing the number 192 (under which Linnaeus listed Anoméa gryphus in 1758) and that this appears to belong, not to G. arcuata, but to the related species G. obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815 (Min. Conch. 2:24). Nevertheless, this specimen could not be accepted as more than a syntype of the Linnean species. Thus, the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal com- bination Anomia gryphus) constitutes a potential threat to the stability of the name of one or other of the two species now known as Gryphaza arcuata Lamarck and Gryphaea obliquata Sowerby (J.). The possibility that a well-established name (such as the trivial name arcuata Lamarck, 1801, or the trivial name 330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815) might be threatened by some older nomen dubium (such as the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758) has been anticipated by the International Commission and by the International Congress of Zoology, and the latter body, on the recommendation of the Commission, has inserted in Article 31 a provision that in such a case the question at issue is to be referred to the Commission for decision (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:76). It is in pursuance of that provision that this case is now reported to the International Commission. It cannot possibly be established that the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, certainly applies to the same species as the name arcuata Lamarck, 1801, and the continued existence of this name as an available name serves no useful purpose whatever, constituting only a threat to the stability of the names arcuata Lamarck and obliquata Sowerby (J.). The International Commission is accordingly asked to remove that threat by using its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus. Recommendations 16. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to reject the arguments regarding the type species of the genus cee advanced by Monsieur Ranson, and :— (1) to rule that, under Article 25 of the Régles, the generic name Gryphaea possesses availability for the purposes of the Law of Priority as from the date of its publication in 1801 in the Systéme of Lamarck and that the type species of that genus is Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, that species having been so selected by Anton (1839) and having been the first of the originally included species to have been so selected by any author ; (2) to use its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758 ( as published in the binominal combination Anomia gryphus) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (3) to place the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, by selection by Anton (1839): Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (as published in the binominal com- bination Gryphaea arcuata), the species so named to be defined by the lectotype selection made in the present application (trivial name of type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801); - (b) obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815 (as published in the i combination Gryphaea obliquata) ; (c) angulata Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal com- bination Gryphaea angulata) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331 (5) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885 (a junior objective synonym of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, the two nominal genera having the same species as type species) ; (b) Liogryphea Douvillé, 1904 (Miss. scr. Pers. 3 (Etudes géol.)(4) (Pal.) : 273) (an invalid variation of Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885) ; (6) to place the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Anomia gryphus), as proposed, under (2) above, to be suppressed under the plenary powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL THAT “GRYPHAEA ANGULATA” LAMARCK, 1819 (CLASS PELECYPODA) SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “GRYPHAEA” LAMARCK, 1819, BY THE SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME “ GRYPHAEA ” LAMARCK, 1801 By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)365) | (Extract from a letter dated 3rd June, 1951) I disapprove of this application and consider that the Rules should take their course. By so doing, they legalise the current and past practice in what I believe to be the overwhelming majority of literature in which the name Gryphaea has been mentioned. I can recall no exception in the whole of palaeontological literature to the assumption that the type species of Gryphaea is a Liassic species. Moreover, the work on programme evolution that has made Gryphaea a household word has so widely disseminated the name in biological literature generally that I cannot understand even a neontologist wanting to change the type species. 332 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF “ GRYPHAEA ANGULATA” LAMARCK, 1819, AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ GRYPHAEA ” LAMARCK, 1819 (CLASS PELECYPODA): COMMENT ON PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY M. GILBERT RANSON By MYRA KEEN (Curator of Paleontology) and SIEMON W. MULLER (Professor of Geology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)365) (Letter dated 29th May, 1951) We strongly disapprove the proposal that Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, should be suppressed under the plenary powers of the International Commission. We see no compelling reason why this should be done, and, in our opinion, such action would result in much confusion. Surveying the literature, we observe that even those authors of the past who have accepted Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, as the type species of the genus Gryphaea have included G. arcuata Lamarck, 1801, in their concept of the genus ; and hence, the name is much more widely established in paleon- tological literature than it is in the literature on Recent forms. The term Crassostrea Sacco, 1898 (in Bellardi & Sacco, Moll. Terr. terz. Piemonte e Inguria : 23 : 15) is available for use in the Recent group—in fact is used by many modern authors. Therefore, we feel that nothing is to be gained and much is to be lost in adopting the proposal, for it means shifting the concept of the genus. If by the proposed ruling, a name were to be protected, the case would be different. This change would merely render obsolete a large body of literature in order to provide a given name for a given type species. Much simpler would be the erection of a new generic group if Monsieur Ranson feels that Crassostrea is inappropriate for the restricted group represented by Gryphaea angulata. The problem has been discussed by the paleontologists Dall (1898, Trans Wagner Free Inst. Sci. Philad. 3 (4) : 672-675), Hertlein (1933, Trans. San Diego Soc. nat. Hist. 7 (22): 277-278) and Stenzel (1947, ‘‘ Nomenclatural Synopsis of supraspecific groups of the family Ostreidae”’, J. Paleont. 21 (2): 165-185, especially page 175), all of whom have come to the conclusion that the type species of Gryphaea should be G. arcuata Lamarck, 1801. The reasons which they and also the late Mr. R. Winckworth have advanced seem to us cogent. —————— rr - Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333 OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE OF “GRYPHAEA ANGULATA” LAMARCK, 1819, AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ GRYPHAEA ” LAMARCK, 1801 (CLASS PELECYPODA) : COMMENT ON PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY M. GILBERT RANSON By D. T. DONOVAN, B.Sc., Ph.D. (University of Bristol, Department of Geology, Bristol) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)365) (Extract from a letter dated 8th June, 1951) Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, the type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and other species of the same genus, are common and familiar fossils in rocks of Lower Lias age, and have been known almost exclusively by this generic name since the time of Lamarck’s work. I realise that the living species, Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, the Portuguese Oyster, is very well known to students of recent molluscs, but, even if it is as familiar to them as the fossil species Giryphaea arcuata Lamarck is to palaeontologists, the use of the plenary powers to suspend the Régles where they operate to give a perfectly umambiguous result would seem highly undesirable, and only to be recommended if the combination Giryphaea arcuata had for long fallen out of use, which is most emphatically not the case. s 334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR DR. L. R. COX’S PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE NAME “ CARDINIA ” (CLASS LAMELLIBRANCHIATA) AS FROM AGASSIZ [1841] By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)208) (Extract from a letter dated 3rd June, 1951) With reference to Dr. L. R. Cox’s application for the use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Cardinia as from Agassiz [1841] (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 59-64), I agree with this application and wish to support it. SUPPORT FOR DR. HENNING LEMCHE’S PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME “SCAPHANDER” MONTFORT, 1810 (CLASS GASTROPODA) By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) _ .(Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)378) (Extract from a letter dated 22nd June, 1951) The name Scaphander should, in my opinion, be placed on the Official List as requested, for the very convincing reasons given by Dr. Henning Lemche in his application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature’. 3 See 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2: 35-36. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335 SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. W. K. ARKELL IN REGARD TO THE GENERIC NAMES “ AMMONITES,” “ ARNIOCERAS ” AND “ LIPAROCERAS ” AND THE TRIVIAL NAME “ ANGULATUS ” SCHLOTHEIM, 1820 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “ AMMONITES ANGULATUS’”’) (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) By D. T. DONOVAN, B.Sc., Ph.D. (Bristol University, Department of Geology, Bristol) (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)425, 509, 507, 422) (Extract from a letter dated 28th May, 1951) I write to comment on certain of the applications submitted to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. W. J. Arkell and published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 2, Parts 6/8. I have been specialising in Liassic Ammonites for several years and have just completed an account of certain of them, while I am preparing revisions of two old monographs, namely Thomas Wright’s “ Monograph on the Lias Ammonites of the British Islands’ and Pierre Reynes’ “ Monographie des Ammonites.’ Consequently, I am directly concerned with the effects of some of Dr. Arkell’s proposals. (1) Page 200. Generic name Ammonites Bruguwiére (Z.N.(S.)425) :-— I agree with Dr. Arkell that it is undesirable for this name to remain, as at present, based on an eighteenth-century figure of uncertain identity, owing to the possibility of different interpretations, as pointed out in paragraph 11 of the proposal. The alternative procedure, namely the definition of the type species by reference to a later figure is liable to displace other current names ; as regards the particular proposal mentioned by Dr. Arkell (paragraph 13(A)) that d’Orbigny’s 1843 plate 43 should be selected as “ neotype ” of Ammonites bisulcatus, Bruguiére, I have personally examined d’Orbigny’s collection at Paris and have satisfied myself that his plate 43 does not represent any now existing specimen ; it may be a figure of a lost specimen but is more likely to be an idealised drawing. It is therefore undesirable that the interpretation of any genus should depend on this figure. In my own work I have not used the genus, since it cannot be defined to the agreement of all, and I feel that Dr. Arkell’s proposal for suppression would be an acceptable solution. (2) Page 204. The trivial name angulatus Schlotheim (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites angulatus) (Z.N.(S.)422) :— I agree with the proposal to suppress the trivial name angulatus Sowerby, 1815 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites angulatus) in favour of angulatus Schlotheim, 1820 (as published in the same binominal combination), as it will bring the legal position into line with universal usage. Any possible doubt as to the identity of Schlotheim’s species has been removed since Dr. Arkell’s paragraphs 10-12 were written, by the publication of type 336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature material by Lange (1951, Piatnconetnonegtieae 100 (Abt 1): pl. 1, fig. 2 (lee- totype), also fig. 6 and pl. 2, fig. 13). (3) Page 217. Type species of Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 (Z.N.(8.)509) :— (4) Page 220. Type species of Liparoceras Hyatt, 1867 (Z.N.(S.)507) :— I agree with Dr. Arkell’s proposals for the type species of these genera. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR. W. J. ARKELL THAT THE GENERIC NAME “ AMMONITES ” BRUGUIERE, 1789 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER > AMMONOIDEA) SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS By C. W. WRIGHT (London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)425) (Extract from a letter dated 17th July, 1951) I should like to support Dr. W. J. Arkell’s application (1951, Bull. zools Nomencl. 2: 200-203) for the suppression of the generic name Ammonite. Bruguiére, 1789. Although it might be argued that this name is comparable in its double connotation, as the name of a genus and, almost in the vernacular, as the name of an Order or Sub-Order, to such names as Nautilus, the scale of the vernacular use of Ammonites is so vast that its use as the name of a nominal genus-would be bound to be confusing and misleading, quite apart from the arguments adduced by Dr. Arkell. ——————— KE ~~ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 337 SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR. W. J. ARKELL FOR THE SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF FIVE EARLY NAMES FOR GENERA OF AMMONITES (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AM- MONOIDEA) By C. W. WRIGHT (London) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)423) (Extract from a letter dated 17th July, 1951) As a worker in Cretaceous ammonites, | am writing to support strongly Dr. W. J. Arkell’s application (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 198-199) for the suppression of the five early names of ammonite genera, Planulites and Orbulites Lamarck, 1801, Pelagus and Ellipsolithes Montfort, 1808, and Globites de Haan, 1825. As he says, these names constitute a menace to ammonite nomenclature and that menace should be removed. ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE GENERIC NAME “ ARIETICERAS” QUENSTEDT, 1883 (CLASS CEPHAL- OPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) IS AN AVAILABLE NAME: COMMENT ON THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY DR. W. J. ARKELL By H. ENGEL (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)486) (Extract from a letter dated 7th May, 1951) The question in regard to the availability of Quenstedt’s generic name Arieticeras raised by Dr. W. J. Arkell (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl.2 : 208-210) and commented on by yourself (ibid. 2: 211-213) as of general interest is a psychological one. My conclusion is that Dr. Arkell is not right in concluding that Quenstedt did not intend it as a new name. If he had thought it unnecessary, he could have stated that perhaps a new name might be required to distinguish the species in question but have given no name. The fact, however, that he did give a new name implies that he supposed that someone might think it necessary to give the species a new generic name and, providing for that case, he supplied a name. Though he decided for practical purposes not to use that name, he clearly gave it, to meet a future situation in which it might be considered necessary. Why else did he actually compose that name ? If one could ask Quenstedt, he would, I feel sure, be dissatisfied if his name were not to be regarded as available. 338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME “PLEUROCERA” RAFINESQUE, 1818 (CLASS GASTROPODA) SET FORTH IN THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CLATURE By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)83) (Extract from a letter dated 22nd June, 1951) I am in complete agreement with the recommendations in regard to the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda) which you suggest in your Report to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2: 6-17), and for the same reasons which you have so ably formulated. I find, however, that I cannot agree with Dr. Rehder’s statement on p. 12 par. 3 (4). My feeling is that in formulating rules it is quite impossible to foresee all the possible contingencies that the rules will have to meet, and that if suspension is kept at a minimum, it will be necessary to alter the rules from time to time, increasing their complexity and also the difficulty of understanding them and applying them. The best way to achieve stability is to get the important names on to the Official List, and Pleurocera is a very important name, even if the genus it designates is a small one. If placing it on the Official List for use in its accepted sense involves suspension of rules, then by all means let the rules be suspended. SUPPORT FOR DR. W. E. CHINA’S PROPOSAL RELATING TO THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ CAPSUS ” FAB- RICIUS, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) By S. v. KELER (Chief of the Hemiptera Department, Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)211) (Letter dated 18th May, 1951) Nach Kenntnisnahme und Ueberpriifung der Belange zu dem im 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2(4)S. 103-104, veréffentlichten Antrag von W. E. China iiber die Bestimmung von Cimex ater Linnaeus, 1758, als Typus der Gattung Capsus Fabricius, 1803, erklare ich, dass ich den Antrag in allen Punkten unterstiitze. iin Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339 SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR HAROLD E. VOKES RELATING TO THE ENTRY OF THE NAME “MYTILUS” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS PELECYPODA) ON THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)193) (Extract from a letter dated 22nd June, 1951) _ Since the names Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758, and Anodonta Lamarck, 1801, with their respective type species, are already on the Official List, I fail to see that any further action should be needed to stabilize them but, if such action is necessary, I should certainly support it. I would, however, like in this connection: to call attention to the following point not mentioned in the application (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2: 31-32). Schumacher, in his Essai nouv. Syst. Vers. test. of 1817, also figured the hinge of Arca Linnaeus as a type selection and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in fixing the type of Arca, discarded Schumacher’s selection. I have not seen Schumacher’s Hssai, but Dr. H. A. Rehder, who has consulted it for me, tells me that the types of Arca and of Mytilus are selected in exactly the same way, from which I conclude that the discarding of the type selection of Arca automatically implies the discarding of the type species of Mytilus as well, and that therefore the earliest available type selection for Mytilus is that of Anton, and that Mytilus edulis is the type whether the rules are suspended or not. The names Mytilus and Anodonta were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology before the Official List of Specific Trivial Names was established. I believe, therefore, that the names edulis Linnaeus, 1758, and cygneus Linnaeus, 1758, as originally published as Mytilus edulis and Mytilus cygneus, are not on the latter List. I would accordingly suggest that these specific trivial names be now added to the Official List. 340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR THE RETENTION OF THE GENERIC NAMES “CRANGON” WEBER, 1795, AND ‘“ CRAGO” LAMARCK, 1801 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECA- PODA): OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS By WALDO L. SCHMITT (Smathsonvan Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)231) (Letter dated 30th November, 1950) I am still hoping that there may be an opportunity for the weight of opinion to insure the retention of the use of Crangon Weber for Alpheus and Crago Lamarck for the genus formerly known as Crangon. I was much impressed by a survey made by Dr. Chace as long ago as 20th October.* It bears out my opinion of the feelings of the majority of the carcinologists and especially of American workers. Taxonomists have been accused of never being happy unless they could change names, but in this case a majority opinion should have some weight. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS REGARDING THE NAMES “ CRANGON ” FABRICIUS, 1798, AND “ ALPHEUS” FABRICIUS, 1798 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) By MARIE V. LEBOUR, D.Sc. (The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, England) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)231) (Letter dated 4th July, 1951) I have just received a paper from Dr. L. B. Holthuis of Leiden (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 69-72) on the proposed use of the plenary powers to validate the generic name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp and the generic name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, for the Snapping Shrimps (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), and I wish to state that I heartily agree with his views. ‘For Dr. Chace’s survey here referred to, see pp. 76-78. i : j j ; ; 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341 OBJECTION TO DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS’ PROPOSALS RE- LATING TO THE NAMES “CRANGON” FABRICIUS, 1798, AND “ALPHEUS” FABRICIUS, 1798 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) By FRANK A. MCNEILL (Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)231) (Extract from a letter dated Qnd J anuary, 1951) My American colleague, Fenner A. Chace, Jr., has written me and given details of Dr. L. B. Holthuis’ application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. He also included in his letter a copy of the case he prepared and submitted to you for the consideration of the Commission. Dr. Chace’s case is presented in a fair and logical way. It is in complete agreement with my views on the matter and in accordance with modern accepted usage. There are, however, one or two points that I would like to contribute to the discussion. First, I have always been an adherent to the golden rule of priority ; this is one of the foundation stones of our taxonomic science today. At times a worker must find it a nuisance, but no amount of argument can get around the right of an earlier accepted author’s claim to recognition. The law of priority has been clearly set out by the Commission and it would surely lose in standing and confidence if it started now to make exceptions. This ‘‘ Alpheus—Crangon issue” has a classical parallel in taxonomy. I refer to Alcock’s impassioned appeal for the retention of Gelasimus (Fiddler Crabs) as against the prior name Uca. In any consideration on the question under discussion this appeal of Alcock’s should be carefully considered by the Commission ; the reference is: 1900, J. asiat. Soc. Bengal (Pt. 2) 69(3) : 350. Every carcinologist today knows that this was a lost cause, for it is a rarity for the old name Gelasimus to appear in modern literature. 342 Bulletin of Zoologicat Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS REGARDING THE NAMES “ CRANGON ” FABRICIUS, 1798, AND “ALPHEUS” FABRICIUS, 1798 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) By A. B. NEEDLER (Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Atlantic Biological Station, St. Andrews, N.B., Canada) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)231) (Letter dated 5th July, 1951) I have received a copy of Dr. L. B. Holthuis’ application (Z.N.(8.)231) to validate the generic names Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and I should like to support it. In common with most Americans and Canadians, I have been using Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crago Lamarck, 1801, for these genera, but this practice leads to many muddles and should be abandoned. A PROPOS DE LA PROPOSITION DU DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS AU SUJET DES NOMS GENERIQUES “CRANGON” WEBER, 1795 “CRANGON” FABRICIUS, 1798 ET “ ALPHEUS” FABRICIUS, 1798 par H. NOUVEL (Faculté des Scrences de Toulouse, France) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)231) Au cours d’une conversation avec le Dr. L. B. Holthuis et alors que je lui faisais part de ce qu’aé mon avis, la stricte application des Régles Internationales de Nomenclature pouvait avoir d’irritant et de néfaste dans certains cas par- ticuliers, & l’appui de mon opinion, je citais le famaux exemple ‘“‘ Crangon- Crago-Alpheus.”’ J’ajoutais que l’initiative de Rathbun était le plus bel exemple de ce qu’un spécialiste ne devait pas faire. Je lui disais aussi que personnelle- ment, j’avais découvert des cas semblables au cours de mes recherches bib- liographiques mais je me faisais un devoir de ne pas les dévoiler. C’est seulement aprés cette déclaration que le Dr. Holthuis m’a fait part de sa proposition relativement & ce cas précis. Il me parait intutile de reprendre les arguments fort pertinents de MM. Holthuis et Gurney. Je voudrais seulement insister sur l’argument de bon sens. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343 Pour ce qui concerne la Crevette la plus commune des cétes européennes, qui est aussi celle qui a été le plus souvent nommée dans la littérature et qui de plus, est le type du genre, aussi bien les Carcinologistes que les Zoologistes non spécialities, les Physiologistes, les Biologistes, les Economistes ont. employé les noms de Crangon crangon ou de Crangon vulgaris. C’est aussi celui qu’on trouve dans les traités classiques et les ouvrages de faunistique et de déter- mination. Dans ces conditions, il se passerait bien des années avant que l’on puisse faire admettre l’usage du nom générique ‘“‘ Crago,” si l’on songe qu’un demi-siécle d’usage n’a pu faire abandonner “ Crangon vulgaris” ! Je n’ignore pas que l’argument joue en sens inverse, en Amérique, pour Crago semtemspinosus, mais la littérature relative 4 cette espéce est bien moins considérable, moins étalée dans le temps, moins “classique” que celle de Crangon crangon. Pour ce qui concerne le rejet d’ “Alpheus,” je me contenterai de dire qu’en Europe et dans la plus grande partie du monde, et en dehors de quelques carcinologistes professionnels, il est fort peu de Zoologistes (s'il en est!) qui songent & un Alpheidae lorsque l’on parle de “ Crangon,” méme en y associant le nom de Weber ! . Je voudrais enfin joindre un argument d’ordre psychologique. En Europe, tout au moins, les usagers qui ne sont pas des taxonomistes professionnels sont, 4 juste titre, lassés par les continuelles et fréquentes modifications de nomenclature qui leur apparaissent bien souvent comme une activité scientifique stérile, désagréable et méme néfaste. Il faut bien reconnaitre que la est l’origine du discrédit qui frappe les systématiciens dans l’esprit de beaucoup de Bio- logistes et de Physiologistes. Je pense, 4 l’encontre de M. Chace, que l’avis des Biologistes qui ne sont pas des Carcinologistes taxonomistes professionnels et actifs est loin d’étre négligeable. Done chaque fois que l’application des Régles ne s’impose réellement pas, je pense qu’il faut opter pour la solution qui apporte le minimum de pertur- bations. C’est pourquoi je suis fermement partisan de la solution proposée par le Dr. L. B. Holthuis. 344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS IN REGARD TO THE GENERIC NAMES “CRANGON,” “LIGIA,” ‘“SCYLLARIDES,” ‘“LYSIO- SQUILLA” AND =‘“ODONTODACTYLUS” (CLASS CRUSTACEA) By HEINRICH BALSS (Hauptkonservator der Zoologischen Staatssammlung, Miinchen, a D., Germany) (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)231, 209, 473, 474, 475) (Letter dated 6th July, 1951) Mr. L. B. Holthuis hat mir eine Reihe von Antragen an die internationale Nomenklaturkommission zugesandt (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)2315 (Crangon), 209° (Ligia), 4737 (Scyllarides), 474% (Lysiosquilla), 475° (Odonto- dactylus)). Ich erlaube mir, Ihnen mitzuteilen, dass ich mit allen seinen Vorschlagen einverstanden bin. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS IN REGARD TO THE GENERIC NAMES “CRANGON,” “LIGIA,” ‘“SCYLLARIDES,’ ‘“LYSIO- SQUILLA,” AND “ODONTODACTYLUS” (CLASS CRUSTACEA) By E. SOLLAUD (Université de Lyon, Faculté des Sciences, Lyon) (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)231, 209, 473, 474, 475) (Letter dated 11th July 1951) Je recgois de mon collégue et ami Mr. Holthuis, du Museum de Leide, cing notes relative & des propositions faites 4 |’International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature au sujet d’un certain nombre de noms de genres de Crustacés (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)231° (Crangon), 209° (Liga), 4737 (Scyllarides), 4748 (Lysiosquilla), 475° (Odontodactylus). Je vous informe que, aprés avoir lu attentivement ces notes, j’approuve entiérement les propositions de Mr. Holthuis. J’estime qu’une application rigoureuse, en toutes circonstances, du loi de priorité conduirait a d’inextricables confusions et, bien loin de servir notre science, lui serait tres préjudiciable. Il est impossible d’abandonner de noms tels que Ligia, Crangon, Alpheus, . . ., qui sont passés dans le langage courant, et votre Commission fera oeuvre bien utile en freinant l’ardeur des “‘ puristes ” de la Priorité. 5 See Holthuis, 1951, Bull zool. Nomencel. 2 : 69-72. 6 See Buitendijk & Holthuis, 1951, ibid. 2 : 99-101. 7 See Holthuis, 1951, ibid. 2 : 81-82. 8 See Holthuis, 1951, ibid. 2 : 83-84. ® See Holthuis, 1951, ibid. 2 : 86-87. Ea ae —. EEE — - Ee * With reference to the application submitted b (1951, Bull. zool. Nomenel, 2: 37-39), I am of the op name Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758, should be powers before someone selects a type species doing so, upsets a long-established and unive 4 See footnote 6. — ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345 SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME “LIGIA” FABRICIUS, 1798 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) AND ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS SUBMITTED BY THE LATE MISS M. BUIT- ENDIJK AND DR. L. B. HOLTHUIS By A. VANDEL (Laboratoire de Zoologie, Université de Toulouse, France) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)209) (Extract from a letter dated 6th J une, 1951) __ Ingia. Entiérement d’accord avec feu Mlle. A. M. Buitendijk et M. L. B. Holthuis,!° et Paul Heegard.—Il conviendrait. seulement d’ajouter que cette question de nomenclature avait été déja trés nettement exposé et résolue dans le méme sens par Fr. Dahl (1916, Die Asseln oder Isopoden Deutschlands, Jena : 32). SUPPORT FOR PROFESSOR MUNRO FOX’S PROPOSAL THAT THE GENERIC NAME “ MONOCULUS” LINNAEUS, 1758, SHOULD BE tal omen UNDER THE PLENARY By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)377) (Extract from a letter dated 22nd June, 1951) y Professor H. Munro Fox inion that the generic Suppressed under the plenary for the genus so named, and, by rsally understood name. 346 Bulletin of Zoological. Nomenclature REQUEST THAT THE NAME “ DORYLAS,” AN AMENDA- TION BY KERTESZ (1910) OF THE NAME “ DORILAS” MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA), BE PLACED ON THE “ OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” By D. ELMO HARDY (University of Hawar, Department of Zoology and Entomology, Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)221) In my letter of 19th October 1950 (see 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 144-145) I expressed my strong dissent from the proposal submitted by Mr. William F. Rapp (Doane College, Crete, Nebraska, U.S.A.) that the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its plenary powers for the purpose of suppressing the generic name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, and thus conferring availability upon its junior synonym Pzpunculus Latreille, [1802- 1803]. I see that Dr. John Smart (University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology, Cambridge) has now submitted a formal application to the International Commission, setting out the action which he recommends that the International Commission should take to confer availability upon the name Pipunculus Latreille (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2: 148-149). In these circumstances it - will, I think, be convenient if I formally submit a statement of the action which I ask the International Commission to take to make it clear that it is the name Dorilas Meigen, 1800, and not the name Pipunculus Latreille, [1802- 1803], which is the correct name for the genus comprising the species Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803], which is the type species of both these nominal genera. Before making this formal submission, there is one matter connected with this case which has not been directly raised in any of the communications submitted to the International Commission, but on which is very desirable that a decision should be taken as part of any general settlement of this problem. I refer to the question of the spelling to be adopted for this Meigen name, namely whether the original spelling Dorilas should be used or whether the emendation Dorylas published by Kertesz in 1910 (Cat. Dipt. 7 : 368) should be used in its place. On this subject there are two considerations which I desire to lay before the Commission: First, it must be noted that, although the spelling Dorylas was frequently used in the literature, following the proposal put forward by Kertesz in 1910, that spelling has now for some time been completely replaced by the original spelling Dorilas, and confusion rather than uniformity would result if it were necessary now to revert to the discarded emendation Dorylas. Second, it may be noted that the spelling Dorylas has been used for a genus in the Order Coleoptera (Dorylas Dejean, 1835, Cat. Coleopt. (ed. 2): 409). I accordingly ask that the Commission, when dealing with this case, should make it clear that it is the original spelling Dorilas and not the emended spelling Dorylas which should be used. Rate te —" Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 347 The proposal which, in continuation of my letter of 19th October 1950, I now submit is that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) place the generic name Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (type species, by desig- nation by Coquillet (1910): Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802- 1803]) (gender of generic name: masculine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) place the trivial name campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] (as published in the binominal combination Pipunculus campestris) (trivial name of type species of Dorilas Meigen, 1800) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (3) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (an objective junior synonym of Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803], the two nominal genera having the same species as type species) ; (b) Dorylas Kertesz, 1910 (an invalid emendation of Dorilas Meigen, 1800). OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR MARTIN L. ACZEL IN FAVOUR OF THE ADDITION OF THE NAME “TYLOS” TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” By A. VANDEL (Laboratoire de Zoologie, Université de Toulouse, France) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)501) (Extracts from letters dated 6th June and 20th July, 1951) (a) Extract from a letter dated 6th June, 1951 L’adoption de Tylos Meigen, 1800, proposée par Aczél (: 156) (mais rejeté par Smart : 158) aurait le grave inconvénient d’etablir une homonymie avec un genre bien connu d’Isopodes Oniscoides, Tylos Latreille, 1825 (in Audouin et Savigny). (b) Eatract from a letter dated 20th July, 1951 En parlant de “ genre bien connu,” je voulais simplement exprimer que depuis 1825 le terme de Tylos est adopté sans exception par tous les carcino- logistes. I] serait trop long d’en donner la liste compléte, mais une énumération importante a été donnée par: Stebbing (T.R.R.)—1910, “Reports on the Marine Biology of the Sudanese Red Sea” (J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 31. Voir pp. 226-227). Il serait bien facheux qu’un nom employé de fagon constante depuis 125 ans fut rejeté. 348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE REGARDING THE GENERIC NAMES “ TITANIA,” “ DORILAS,” “ TENDIPES,” “ PHILIA” AND “TYLOS” MEIGEN, 1800 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By W. HENNIG (Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Berlin) (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.)197, 221, 469, 498, 501) (Letter dated 22nd May, 1951) Asked by Professor EK. M. Hering for a comment on the various proposals concerning the names of Dipterous genera (Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 2, Part 5) I wish to bring forward the following considerations :— ~ It is deeply to be regretted that the names of Meigen, 1800, were unearthed by Hendel (1908) and at that time every effort to suppress those names should have been supported. Since, however, the suppression of the names of Meigen, 1800, in toto was rejected by Opinion 28, they were used in several fundamental publications such as Lindner’s “ Fliegen der palaiarktischen Region ” and other important revisionary works as pointed out by Aczél, Hardy, and Stone. Every attempt to restore the names of Meigen, 1800, is, therefore, now 30 to 40 years too late and contributes to augmentation rather than diminution of confusion. This is especially true in the case of the names Tylos, Dorilas, and also Philia and Tendipes, though for these latter two perhaps not quite to the same extent. For this reason I fully agree with Aczél, Hardy, and Stone in the proposal to use the names Tylos, Dorilas, Philia and Tandipes instead of Micropeza, Pipunculus, Dilophus, and Chironomus respectively. It is quite another situation with Titania versus Chlorops. Titania has never been used in recent publications. Its introduction ‘n the place of the well-known and very important name Chlorops would lead, therefore, to considerable disadvantage and confusion, especially in the literature of economic entomology. I think that there will be general meee it in this. case with the proposal of Dr. Sabrosky. utd Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349 ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THE TRIVIAL NAME “ AJAX” LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “PAPILIO AJAX”) SHOULD BE SUP- PRESSED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL A eau UNDER ITS PLENARY By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS, LL.B. (Research Associate, Department of Insects and Spiders, American Museum of Natural History, New York) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)192) (Note dated 15th May, 1951) 1. Reference is made to two prior papers on this subject published by the late A. Steven Corbet (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 (1) : 26-29) and by Francis Hemming (ibid. 2 (1) : 29-30). 2. It having been ascertained by Corbet from an examination of the Linnean collection that the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio ajax) was proposed for an Oriental species later named Papilio xuthus by Linnaeus in 1767, although never used for that insect, but by error having been applied by some authors to two Nearctic butterflies, the question arises whether it would be better (a) to suppress the name ajaz, or (b) to apply it (incorrectly) by a suspension of the Régles to one of the Nearctic insects for which it has sometimes been used. 3. This problem involves the names of two Nearctic and one Oriental Papilio. I shall consider only the two former. One of these is a subspecies of Papilio polyxenes Fabricius, 1775, sometimes known as the common American on the Black (or Parsnip) Swallowtail, and the other is often referred to as Papilio marcellus Cramer, [1777], or the Papaw or Zebra Swallowtail. There has been considerable confusion as to which scientific names should be employed for these insects. Recent American authors have shown a tendency to abandon the name ajax for either of them, although one follows McDunnough (1938, ‘‘ Check List of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America’. Mem. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 1: 5) and uses ajax for the first-mentioned butterfly. Holland (1931, Butterfly Book (revised ed.) : 314) used asterius for the subspecies of polyxenes inhabiting North America, and ajax for the more southerly Papaw or Zebra Swallowtail in direct contradiction to the then current Barnes & Benjamin list (1926, “‘ Check List of the Lepidoptera of Boreal America”. Bull. S. Calif. Acad. Sec. 25(1) : 5). Clark (1932, “‘ Butterflies of the District of Columbia and vicinity ”, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 157: 191) used asterias for the Nearctic sub- species of polyxenes but marcellus Boisduval (recte Cramer) for the Papaw or Zebra Swallowtail and omitted ajax entirely. Macy and Shepard ([1941], Butterflies, a Handbook of the butterflies of the United Sstates, complete for the Region north of the Potomac and Chio Rivers and east of the Dakotas : iii) stated that “. . . In order to achieve uniformity, ...” they followed the nomen- clature of the McDunnough check list. Brown (1951, “‘ The American Papilios’’, 350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Lepidopterists’ News 4 : 63) also used ajax for the species polyxenes. Finally, Klots (1951, A Field Guide to the butterflies of North America, east of the Great Plains: 172) employed asterius Stoll, [1784], for the Nearctic subspecies polyxenes and omitted ajax, except that (erroneously) he placed ajax Clerck, 1764, in the synonymy. 4. Thus we find ajaz in recent years used for two different species of Nearctic butterflies which have valid names, i.e. asterius and marcellus, and on top of that it is now descovered that ajax is not properly applicable to either of them. In view of the improper use of ajax, the lack of uniformity among American authors respecting the applicability of that name to one Nearctic species, and the fact that some authors have dropped the name entirely, no harm and much good would be done by the suppression of the name ajax and that course is undoubtedly the most desirable one to follow. Therefore, I recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature take such action. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE- LATE DR. A. STEVEN CORBET FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE TRIVIAL NAME “AJAX” LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “PAPILIO AJAX”) (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By ERICH MARTIN HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)192) (Letter dated 28th May, 1951) There is no doubt that, under a strict application of the Rules, the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Papilio ajax) should be employed for the species generally known as Papilio xuthus Linnaeus, 1767. To prevent the confusion which would follow if ajax Linnaeus, 1758, were to replace zuthus Linnaeus, 1767, I propose that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its plenary powers to suppress the trivial name ajax Linnaeus, 1758, altogether. a | iene ee _——_ °° Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 351 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DETER- MINE THE SPECIES TO WHICH THE TRIVIAL NAME “SIRTALIS”” LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUBLISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “COLUBER SIRTALIS”) (CLASS REPTILIA) IS TO BE APPLIED: SUPPORT FOR APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DR. KARL P. SCHMIDT AND MR. ROGER CONANT By LAURENCE M. KLAUBER (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)433) (Letter dated 22nd May, 1951) Reference is made to the above-mentioned case, discussed on pages 67-68, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 2, Pt. 3, and the request for comments appearing in Science, vol. 113, p. 560. Messrs. Karl P. Schmidt and Roger Conant, in their original statement of the case to the Commission, list my name, among others, as being favourable to the change indicated as necessary under the Rules, in my paper published in Copeia in 1948. As a matter of fact, although the change was originally shown by me to be technically necessary, I am not in favour of the change, now that the Commission’s plenary powers have been modified to include the conservation of trivial names. Therefore, I join with the majority of American herpetologists in recommending that the Commission direct the use of the trivial name sirtalis for the common garter snake, and of the trivial name sauritus for the northern ribbon snake. The particularly confusing situation caused by the transference of the Linnean name sirtalis from one group of garter snakes (the common group) to another (the ribbon group), as demanded by the old Rules, does not exist in the case of the other necessary changes in Linnean names to which I called attention in 1948. The latter changes should stand. 352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY DR. KARL P. SCHMIDT AND MR. ROGER CONANT THAT THE TRIVIAL NAME “SIRTALIS” LINNAEUS, 1758 (AS PUB- LISHED IN THE BINOMINAL COMBINATION “ COLUBER SIRTALIS ”) (CLASS REPTILIA) SHOULD BE PRESERVED FOR USE IN ITS EXISTING SENSE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS By MURRAY L. JOHNSON, M.D. (Tacoma, Washington, U.S.A.) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)433) (Letter dated 9th July, 1951) Here is a good example where the International Commission may act to conserve order in a difficult enough species, taxonomically speaking. I have the highest regard for Dr. Lawrence Klauber and believe his scientific reasoning to be without question, but I take serious issue with the propriety of changing a well established name. I am very glad therefore to learn that in this case Dr. Klauber has notified his support for the use of the plenary powers to preserve the name sirtalis Linnaeus. The objections to discarding this name are very strong: The original Linnean specimens are not extant; the original Linnean description is certainly not adequate by modern standards and yet under the Code we should apply these modern standards retrospectively to identify the species described by Linnaeus. In as much as there are hundreds of articles and tens of thousands of catalogued specimens, entries on cards and in cata- logues, I implore you to use your good offices permanently to stabilize this point of nomenclature. I feel very strongly that the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature should be suspended in the case of Thamnophis swrtalis (Linnaeus), to retain that name. The reasons put forward for the change are not adequate in modern taxonomy, in my opinion. HRC ASSES cOSEP (ah CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) New Applications Request for a ruling that the distribution of a scientific paper in microfilm does not constitute “ publication” for the pur- poses of Article 25 of the Regles. (1) application submitted jointly by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America and the Nomenclature Com- mittee of the Society of Systematic Zoology ; (2) comments on the foregoing by (a) the Committee on Nomenclature of the American Museum of Natural History, New York; (b) Dr. Charles H. Blake; (c) Professor E. H. Behre ; (a) * Zoological Record”? Committee of the a aan Pen, of London. . On Dr. L. R. Cox’s piposal tha S: ae Winiers - Biduieiia # and the “Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi” should be declared not to have been published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles. By the late R. Winckworth (London) Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate type species for the genera Nysius Dallas, 1852, and Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). (1) application by Professor R. L. Usinger and Dr. R. I. Sailer; (2) com- ments on the foregoing a Mr. Francis Me hinge and Dr. W. E. China ; Proposed use of the plenary powers to Daliticks he entry on ae Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the name Limulus Miller, 1785 (Class Merostomata) (proposed correction of an error in Opinion 104). (1) application by Professor Leif Stormer; (2) comments on the foregoing by oe Professor H. Munro Fox ; (b) Dr. Carl O. Dunbar 7 Comments on previously published applications Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801: comments by Dr. L. B. Cox, Dr. W. J. Arkell, ‘Dr. Myra Keen and Professor Siemon W. Muller, and Dr, D. T. Donovan Cardinia Agassiz, [1841] : comment by Dr. W. 1 Arkell Scaphander ere 1810: comment by Mr. ae j Baily, Jr. 5 an Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789: trivial name angulatus a fieheien 1820 (as published in combination Ammonites angulatus) ; Arniocera Hyatt, 1867, and aapaaiod eg 1867: com- ments by Dr. D. T. Donovan. . - : Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789 : comment by Mr. C. W. Wright .. Planulites and Orbulites Lamarck, 1801, Pelagus and Ellipsolithes Montfort, 1808, Globites de Haan, 1825: comment by Mr. C. W. Wright e ¥ é “i Arieticeras Quentedt, 1883 : comment by Professor H. Engel Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 : comment by Mr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. Capsus Fabricius, 1803 : comment by S. v. Kéler _ Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758: comment by Mr. Joshua L. Baily, i Page 306-312 312 313-318 319-323 324-333 334 334 335-336 336 337 337 338 338 339 CONTENTS (continued from overleaf) Comments on previously published applications—continued Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 : comments : by Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt ; Dr. Marie V. Lebour ; Dr. Frank A. McNeill; Dr. A. B. Needler; Professor H. Nouvel .. 340-34 & Crangon Fabricius, 1798 ; Ligia Fabricius, 1798 ; Scyllarides Gill, ae 1898 ; Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852; Odontodactylus Bigelow, a 1893 : comments by Professor Heinrich Balss and Professor E. Sollaud ; ~ ¥ » ts Ligia Fabricius, 1798 : comment by Professor A. Vandel Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758: comment by Mr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. Dorilas Meigen, 1800 : comment by Professor D. Elmo Hardy .. 346— 7 Tylos Meigen, 1800: comment by Professor A. Vandel WE Titania, Dorilas, Tendipes, Philia, and ae ies 1800: comment by Dr. W. Hennig ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the Siuenia eninbiiation Papilio ajax): comments by Mr. C. F. dos Passos and % Professor E. M. Hering M7 ... 3¢o=aae sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the ealabrnaeia cniniaieion a Coluber sirtalis) : comments by Dr. Laurence Klauberand Dr. _ y. Murray L. Johnson... ate a aa = .. 351-338 Important Notice Part 12 of the present volume containing the Title Page, Table of Contents ‘an 1 Indexes is in the press and will be published shortly. , Publications of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature All inquiries regarding the publications issued by the International Trust Zoological Nomenclature on behalf of the International Commission on Zoolog Nomenclature, should be addressed to the Publications Officer, Offices of the Inter- national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.' W.7 England. e Vrinted in Great Britain by MeTcHIM & SON, LIMITED, Westminster, London —— VOLUME 2. Part 12 30th December, 1952 ‘THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of “THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 9 _ ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature - iV ns ae Rm 4d gi” | RESIS LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for : Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.- 1952 Price Two pounds Two Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom) President : Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re= election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) a Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil) (Vice-President) (1st January 1944) Professor J. R. Dymond (Canada) (lst January 1944) Professor J. Chester Bradley (President) (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944) Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944) Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (1st January 1947) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947) Professor H. Boschma (Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Peirre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Germany) (5th July 1950) C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. D. The Staff of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature = Honorary Secretary and Managing Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G.,— C.B.E. a Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst, C.B.E. Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust Secretariat of the Commission : 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lon do: 7 N.W.1. . a Offices of the Trust : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 a _——- § —_———- — =< Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 358 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGE- MENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOO- LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR THE YEAR 1949 (Report approved and adopted by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in Annual General Meeting) The year 1949 was one of great activity for the International Trust, for during it great progress was made in the preparations for the simultaneous publication of the three volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which in the previous year it had been decided to devote to the publication of the records of the discussions on zoological nomenclature which had taken. place at the meetings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature and of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology held con- currently at Paris in July 1948. The volumes in question were, it will be recalled : Volume 3, to be devoted to the publication of the documents relating to questions of zoological nomenclature that were considered by the Commission and the Congress in 1948; Volume 4, which was reserved for the publication of the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission during its Paris Session; Volume 5, which was similarly reserved for the publication of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, and of the Reports then sub- mitted by the Commission to the Congress, responsibility for publishing which was accepted last year by the Trust at the request of the Secretary-General of the Congress. 2. Principal activities during the year: The printing of Volume 3 of the Bulletin was completed early during the year, but it was judged better _ to defer publication of this volume until the companion volumes containing the record of the decisions taken by the Commission and the Congress on the matters dealt with in Volume 3 were available, for it was felt that the publication of Volume 3 containing the proposals submitted to the Paris meetings might give rise to misunderstanding if it took place earlier than that of the volumes containing the record of the decisions reached on those _ proposals. Early in the year the first instalments of the draft of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Commission in. Paris were received from the Secretary to the Commission and these were at once sent to the printers for _ proofs. Further instalments followed rapidly, the last portion being received towards the end of the summer. Concurrently with the above, instalments were received of the draft of the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section ~ Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 2 (December 1952) 354 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on Nomenclature of the Congress ; these were at once sent to the printer, and proofs of these also were received by the end of the summer. After these proofs had been checked by the Secretary to the Commission against the original records, the Trust, in accordance with the request addressed to it by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, obtained from the printer page-proofs printed on air mail paper for despatch to the persons whose approval of the drafts prepared by the Secretary was required before the texts could be settled as being definitive. In December 1949 these air mail proofs were despatched to all concerned with a request that they would signify their opinion as to the accuracy and completeness of the draft of the Official Records of Proceedings of the Commission and of the Section on Nomenclature within the time limit prescribed by the Paris Congress. This period is due to expire early in January 1950 and it may be hoped therefore that publication of all three volumes will take place early in the year 1950. 3. Publications: Although no parts of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature and no Opinions or Declarations were published during the year 1949, sales of back parts of previously issued publications (£149) remained at a gratifying level and were almost as high as in 1948 (when they amounted to £175). 4. Donations: As in the years 1947 and 1948 the main source from which the expenditure of the Trust was defrayed in the year 1949 was the grant received from U.N.E.S.C.0. This was in two parts; the first and much the larger (£2,673) consisted of the unexpended balance of the grants for the years 1947 and 1948, for the use of which in 1949 permission had been received from U.N.E.S.C.O. The second contribution from U.N.E.S.C.O. consisted of a fresh grant amounting to £145, which was received during the course of the year 1949 through the intermediary of the International Union for Biological Sciences, the approved medium for the distribution of grants by U.N.E.S.C.0. for scientific projects in the biological field. During the year also a gift of £25 was received from the Royal Entomological Society of London. 5. Thanks for financial assistance received: The Committee of Management desire once again to place on record their high appreciation of the understanding and sympathy shown by U.N.E.S.C.O. in their consideration of the international needs of zoological nomenclature and are happy once more to have an opportunity of expressing their grateful thanks for the munificent subvention granted to the work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The Committee of Management desire also to thank the Royal Entomological Society of London for its continued support. 6. Total Income in 1949: The total income of the Trust in 1949, as derived from the sources described above, amounted to £2,292, an increase of £1,294 over the Income (£1,689) received in the previous year. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 355 7. Printing of three volumes of the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature”: In the opening portion of the present Report particulars have been given of the progress made in 1949 in the preparation of Volumes 3, 4, and 5 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The expenditure so involved amounted to £2,384 3s. 6d. 8. Administrative expenses: Administrative expenses during the year amounted to £429 14s. Id. or £225 less than in 1948. This reduction was largely due to the fact that the post of whole-time salaried Assistant Director which was discontinued early in 1948 was not revived in 1949, and in conse- quence expenditure on salaries (£204) was £110 less than in 1948. In 1949 it was not necessary for the Trust to defray any expenditure on official travelling, whereas in 1948 it had been necessary to arrange for the establishment of a temporary Secretariat for the Commission in Paris during the Session of the Commission held in that city concurrently with the meeting of the Thirteenth _ International Congress of Zoology. Great care has continued to be exercised in the control of office expenses which in the year under review amounted to £204 or only £8 more than in 1948, notwithstanding the considerable increase in business which in 1949 passed through the Offices both of the Commission and of the Trust. 9. Balance carried down: After taking account of a small item (£19 17s. 9d.) in respect of depreciation of Office Equipment, in addition to the items described above, there remained an excess of income over expenditure of £158 16s. Od., which was carried down. When this was added to the sum of £669 16s. 4d. brought forward from 31st December 1948, the total balance at the end of 1949 is seen to have been £888 12s. 4d. 10. Balance Sheet: The Balance Sheet calls for little comment. No change took place during the year in the Office Equipment Reserve, while an expenditure of £127 18s. 4d. was made from the “ Official List ’ Suspense Account. This latter expenditure almost offset the balance carried down (£158 16s. Od.) this year and in consequence the Income and Expenditure Account Balance at the end of 1949 amounted to £1,348 10s. 4d. or only £30 more than at the end of 1948. No change occurred during the year in the provision made in respect of the cost of the revision of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, the responsibility for publication of which the Trust accepted last year at the request of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. 11. The general outlook: As will be seen from the foregoing particulars _ the financial position of the Trust has remained virtually unchanged during the year 1949. Nevertheless, the position is potentially better than the accounts “now presented would at first sight suggest, for it may confidently be expected that when in 1950 the three volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on the printing of which such large sums have been expended both this year _and in 1948, are published, the Trust will reap a substantial gain from the sales So secured. While from the strictly financial point of view, the position of the D 356 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Trust and therefore of the Commission, may be considered satisfactory, the underlying dangers to which the Trust has had occasion to refer on a number of previous occasions remain as serious as ever. For the situation must continue to be essentially insecure for so long as the whole of the scientific work of the Commission, which already would give full employment to a highly paid scientific officer, continues to be performed free of charge by an honorary spare-time officer, the present Secretary to the Commission, assisted only by an honorary spare-time Personal Assistant (the wife of the present Secretary). Looked at from this point of view, the outlook could hardly be more uncertain, for, as the present Accounts show, with its present financial resources, the Trust would be quite unable to find the funds required to employ salaried officials to carry on the work of the Secretariat of the Commission. At the present time therefore the continuance of the work of the Commission is rendered possible only by the services freely given to the Commission by its honorary officers. The situation is thus highly precarious, since, if at any time these honorary officers ceased to be available, the work of the Commission would necessarily suffer an abrupt interruption. The Committee of Management propose to bring this matter before the International Union for Biological Services at the General Assembly of the Union to be held in Stockholm next year in the hope that it may be possible, with the help of the Union, to devise financial arrangements which will at least mitigate the worst of the dangers inherent in the present situation. 12. Presentation of Accounts for the year 1949 and Balance Sheet as at 3lst December 1949: With the foregoing explanations the Committee of Management has pleasure in presenting to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for approval the Accounts for the Year 1949 and the Balance Sheet as at 3lst December 1949. The Committee of Management desire to take this opportunity of recording their thanks to their landlords, the Royal Entomological Society of London, to their printers, Messrs. Metchim and Son Ltd., who have devoted great pains to secure the highest possible standard of accuracy and clarity of lay-out of the three important volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the greater part of which was printed in the year under review, and also to Mrs. C. Rosner, their part-time Publications Officer, who has continued to show great diligence in the discharge of her duties and in her search for additional subscriptions for the publications issued by the Trust. Finally, the Committee of Management has pleasure once again in recording their thanks to the auditors of the Trust, Messrs. W. B. Keen and Co., Chartered Accountants, and in particular to Mr. R. W. M. Taylor, the representative of that firm who, as in previous years, has always shown himself anxious and willing to assist on all matters referred to bim for advice. Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. 20th March 1950, ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 357 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Accounts for the Year 1950 358 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ; INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR Incorporated under the Companies Balance Sheet— 1948 : : £ £ we Ba Us Ly ates de REVENUE RESERVES (per Separate Accounts) : 550 ‘* Official List *’ Suspense Account are pain Berle te ss 648 98 Office Equipment Reserve ee yaa Pee 97: 1698 519 18 4 670 Income and Expenditure Account—Balance ... 828 12 4 1,318 1,348 10 8 Provision for cost of Revision of International Code : ‘International Code (Publication) ’’ Suspense 800 Account—Per Separate Account ... ee 800 0 0 LIABILITIES ; 1,386 Sundry Creditors ... eee tS See .. 3,334 12 10 4,059 2,673 Grant by U.N.E.S.C.O. unspent (estimated) ... — 3,334 12 10 £6,177 “ £5,483 3 6 We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our of account have been kept so far as appears from our examination of those books. We have are in agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of our information ~ the Companies Act, 1948, in the manner so required, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair account gives a true and fair view of the Excess of Income over Expenditure for the year ended Finsbury Circus House, Blomfield Street, LONDON, E.C.2. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 359 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Act, 1929. (Limited by Guarantee) 3lst December 1949 1948 £ £ VE Si 6. Roe as di eae te Frxep ASSETs : Office Equipment : Book Value at 3lst Dec- ember 1947 (being for the purpose of the Companies Act, the value at Ist July 112 1948) sare “ae et PET 36 — Additions during year at cost sae os oe 98 3 3 112 210 0 9 Less Depreciation to 3lst December 1948... LESS 6 101 a fy ame i for Year to date sae 19-17 9 3k 1°3 17819 6 CURRENT ASSETS : Amounts due for Publications 50 valued at ... ace aes 45 0 0 Balance at Bank and Cash in 6,076 6,026 Hand —_ wie 5,259 4 0 5,304 4 0 ° (Note.—Stock of Publications Not Valued) £6,177 £5,483 3 6 FRANCIS HEMMING Members of the A. 8. PANKHURST Committee of Management. knowledge and belief were necessary for the purpose of our audit. In our opinion proper books examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Income and Expenditure Account, which and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required by view of the state of the Trust’s affairs at 31st December 1949, and the Income and Expenditure at that date. _W. B. KEEN & Co. Chartered Accountants. ~ 17th March, 1950. 360 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Income and Expenditure Account for 1948 INCOME py i fy won uaCs fi so To Sales of Publications : 126 Opinions & Declarations . ARE sas 113 6 6 175 49 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature... ee 3515 6 149 2 0 27 Donations ... a ea eee ae 25 0 0 1,496 Grant from U.N. E, Ss. C. a 2,673 9 4 do. per the International Union of Biological _- Sciences . Bs ak 145 0 0 £1,698 £2,992 11 4 To Balance brought down being Excess of Income 28 + over Expenditure for year 158 16 0 1,142 Balance 31st December 1948 brought forward... 669 16 4 £1,170 £828 12 4 “ Official List” _- To Expenditure during year wes ae 127 18 4 350 Balance carried to Balance Sheet si ae 422 1 8 £550 £550 0 0 Office Equipment £98 To Balance carried to Balance Sheet BAe aa £97 16 8 “International Code (Publication) ” S00 To Balance carried to Balance Sheet ies fe 800 0 0 £800 : £300 0 0 eel i ti Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 361 the Year ended 31st December 1949 EXPENDITURE 1948 £ £ £ Poh £> 5 gS a be By Administration Ex penses : Salaries ; 110 Assistant Director te — 175 Publications Officer oy IGh” 2). 314 29 Stenographer Secretary ... 37 7 5 204 9 9 124 Travelling Expenses — 196 Office Expenses 204 4 4 655 21 Audit Fee 21 0 0 42914 } Depreciation of Office Equip- 11 ment ae ais ee 1917 9 Publications — Bulletin of 1,004 Zoological Nomenclature... 2,384 3 6 28 Balance carried down eng 158 16 0 £1,698 £2,992 11 4 ——— ———————_ By Transfer to “ International Code (Publication) Sus- pense Account towards cost of Revision of International 500 Code aa Ace ee —_ Balance carried to Balance 670 Sheet eee Bt 828 12 4 £1,170 £828 12 4 as ——————— Suspense Account rs ag ea ee od By Balance at 31st December 1948 wat ss st 550 £550 550 0 0 £550 0 0 — ————_ — Reserve Balance at 31st December 1948 — a = £97 16 8 Suspense Account a is Be y Balance at 31st December 1948... 300 a zo! ae 800 0 0 Transfer from Income and 600 Expenditure Account —_ £800 £800 0 0 362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGE- MENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOO- LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR THE YEAR 1950 (Report approved and adopted by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in Annual General Meeting) As forecast in the Report for the year 1949 a rich harvest was garnered in 1950 from the expenditure incurred in printing the three volumes (volumes 3,. 4 and 5) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature devoted to the Paris records on which so much work had been devoted and on which such large sums had been expended throughout the whole of 1949 and the latter part also of 1948. As will be seen from the present Report the substantial income obtained from the sale of these volumes almost offset the disappearance of the large grant from U.N.E.S.C.O. received in 1949. 2. Publications : During the year the whole of Volume 3 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (comprising the documents considered by the Com- mission and the Congress in Paris in 1948) and Volume 4 (comprising the Officzal Record of Proceedings of the International Commission at its Paris Session) were published ; Volume 3 was published in three Triple Parts at a total price of four guineas ; Volume 4 was published in eight Triple Parts at a total price of eleven pounds, twelve shillings. In addition, two Triple Parts (priced at one pound, eight shillings each) of Volume 5 were published during the year; the portion published comprised the Official Record of Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, an extract from the Official Record of the Final Plenary Session of that Congress (when the recommendations of the Commission and the Section on Nomenclature were approved), together with two of the three Reports then submitted to the Congress. The total income from the sale of the Bulletin amounted to the gratifyingly large sum of £2,691 18s. 4d., of which by far the greater part was in respect of sales of the three volumes published during the year. No Opinions or Declarations were published during the year but the sale of back parts produced £40 16s., a significant testimony to the continuing interest in this series of publications. The total income from sales thus amounted to £2,732 14s. 4d. 3. Donations : The Committee of Management has to note, and expresses its grateful thanks for, the following donations received during the year: U.N.E.S.C.O. (through the International Union for Biological Sciences), £120 ; Royal Entomological Society of London, £25. — =. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 363 4, Total income: The total income of the Trust in 1950, made up of the foregoing items, amounted to £2,877 14s. 4d. or only £115 less than in the year 1949, when, in addition to a grant of £145 received through I.U.B.8., U.N.E.8.C.0. had made a direct grant of £2,673. While it was inevitably a source of great disappointment to the Committee of Management—as the Committee does not doubt that it will be also to the Trust—that U.N.E.S.C.0. should have abandoned the policy initiated in 1947 under which it made sub- stantial grants to the Trust for the furtherence of the work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the Commission of Management is deeply conscious of the great value of the assistance rendered in this field by U.N.E.S.C.O. in the years 1947-1949. As explained in a Jater paragraph (para- graph 24) of the present Report, the Committee of Management are hopeful that, as the result of the good offices of the International Union for Biological Sciences, U.N.E.S.C.O. may yet render further assistance to the work of the Commission by making a grant to cover the period in which the Trust is endeavouring to provide itself with a permanent source of income. 5. Administrative expenses: During the year 1950 administrative expenses amounted to £546 Os. 11d., an increase of £117 over the expenditure so incurred in 1949. Salaries were at exactly the same level (£204) as in 1949 but office expenses have inevitably risen, partly as the result of a heavy increase in expenditure on postage consequent upon the use of airmail to a greatly increased extent for the purpose of speeding up the work of the Commission, but, mainly because of an increased consumption of paper and office requisites, coupled with the constantly rising cost of replacing stocks. In addition, the expenditure of a sum of £71 on travelling and subsistence was authorised by the Committee of Management in respect of the journey which at its request its Managing Director and Secretary made to Stockholm for the purpose of seeking Financial assistance for the Trust from the International Union of Biological Sciences at its General Assembly held in July 1950. 6. Depreciation of Office Equipment: The sum of £17 17s. 11d. was devoted to covering depreciation of Office Equipment. 7. Cost of Printing : Expenditure on printing during the year amounted to £394 12s. 3d., all in respect of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Of this expenditure the greater part was in respect of the concluding Triple Part of Volume 4, while the remainder was in respect of printing the first instalment of Volume 2, the publication of which had, by a decision taken in 1948, been postponed until after the completion (or virtual completion) of the publication of the three Paris volumes of the Bulletin. It may here be noted as a satis- factory sign of the essential buoyancy of the demand for the publications of the Trust, that as against the total expenditure on printing volumes 3, 4 and 5 of the Bulletin in the years 1948-1950, the greater part was recovered in the form of sales within the twelve months following publication, — 364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8. Balance carried down: The excess of income over expenditure during the year amounted, as the foregoing particulars show, to the sum of £1,919 3s. 3d. This was carried down. When to this is added the sum of- £828 12s. 4d. (the balance brought forward from 3lst December, 1949), the total balance is seen to have been £2,747 15s. 7d. From this however has to be deducted a sum of £200 which during the year was transferred to the ‘International Code (Publication) ’’ Suspense Account. The net sum carried to the Balance Sheet was therefore £2,547 15s. 7d. 9. Provision for the preparation and publication of the revised edition of the “ Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique” : As explained above, a further sum of £200 was put on one side in 1950 towards meeting the cost of preparing and publishing the revised edition of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique adopted by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948. The addition of this sum to the resources already earmarked for this purpose raises the total provision so made to £1,000. 10. Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1950: The Balance Sheet shows that at 3lst December 1950 the Income and Expenditure Account Balance amounted to £3,067 13s. 11d., an increase of £1,719 3s. 9d. over the level at which this balance stood at the end of 1949 (£1,348 10s. 2d.). From the financial point of view, the out-turn of the year 1950 is, in the opinion of the Committee of Management, extremely satisfactory, and it does not doubt that this view will be shared by the other members of the Trust. 11. Negotiations for securing a permanent source of income for the Trust : Reference has already been made to the decision by the Committee of Management to ask its Managing Director and Secretary to proceed to Stock- holm in the summer of 1950 to act as the principal representative of the Trust at the General Assembly of the International Union for Biological Sciences. The Trust was entitled to a delegation of four Representatives. The Trust appointed a strong Delegation consisting of the Managing Director and Secretary to the Trust (who is also Secretary to the International Commission) as Chief Delegate, of two other members of the Commission (Mr. N. D. Riley of the British Museum (Natural History), London, and Professor Erich Martin Hering of the Zoological Museum, Berlin, and one other member of the Trust (Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming), all three of whom were in any case intending to be in Stockholm on the date in question and whose appointment as delegates involved no expenditure on the part of the Trust. The instructions given to the Dele- gation was that it was to do everything in its power to impress upon the Inter- national Union for Biological Sciences the extreme urgency and importance of securing an adequate and assured annual income, for the Trust, in order thereby to ensure the continuance of the international regulation of zoological nomen- clature, that being a basic requirement for the development of zoological science. The Delegation was instructed to press these views upon both the Section for Zoology and the Section for Entomology and also to do everything possible to organise a basis of mutual support for the promotion of scientific nomenclature both with the Section on Botany of the Union and also, if possible, _— CO Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 365 directly also with International Botanical Congress which was due also to meet in Stockholm at the same time. The Delegation was further instructed to urge upon the Union in General Assembly a twofold proposal for the promotion and development of the work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Commission ; under the first part of these instructions the Delegation was to urge the Union to take the initiative in appointing a Committee charged with the duty of devising a long-term plan for financing the work of the Commission on the basis of agreed annual contributions to be paid by institu- tions in different parts of the world concerned in one or another way with the development of work in the biological field; under the second part of its instructions the Delegation was to seek to secure from the General Assembly of the Union the adoption of a Resolution urging U.N.E.S8.C.O. to make a substantial grant to cover the period in which the long-term financial plan was being worked out. 12. The discussions at the Stockholm General Assembly and the accom- panying informal negotiations proved arduous and difficult in many ways. The Delegation was fortunate however in securing the sympathetic support of the entomologists and other zoologists present and they achieved a high degree of friendly co-operation with the botanists both inside the membership of the Union and also in the International Botanical Congress. At the last Plenary Session the Delegation, working closely with their botanical colleagues, obtained the unanimous adoption by the General Assembly of the Union of a Resolution stressing the great importance to zoology and botany respectively of the orderly development of international law in the field of scientific nomenclature, and urging U.N.E.S.C.O. to provide the grant required while the long-term plan advocated by the Trust was being devised. The Union approved also the pro- posal to appoint a high-level Committee to draw up the long-term plan and it is highly gratifying to the Committee of Management that Dr. Gavin de Beer. F.R.S8., Director of the British Museum (Natural History) should have accepted the chairmanship of this important body. 13. The need for securing a firm financial basis for the work of the Inter- national Commission to which reference was made by the Committee of Manage- ment at the close of its Report for 1949 is extremely urgent. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to obtain firm promises of financial support on the basis only of a programme of work, and efforts to obtain such support are much more likelv to prove successful if the body making the appeal can point to a start having been made in the work projected, notwithstanding the handicaps imposed through lack of adequate funds. Already by 1950 the International Commission had recently secured important progress in the development of zoological nomenclature through the part which (as evidenced by Volume 4 of the Bulletin) it had played in securing the reform, clarification and develop- ment of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique. But in other fields of its work—fields to which zoologists and palaeontologists confronted in their work with practical difficulties attach very great importance--ihe International Commission had for a number of years found it impossible (mainly through its preoccupation with matters relating to the reform of the Régles) 366 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to make any progress.and it was in consequence faced with very heavy arrears. The sides of thé work of the Commission concerned were (1) its judicial. func- tions as the supreme interpreter of the Régles in relation to individual nomen- clatorial problems and (2) the promotion of stability in nomenclature by the development of the Official Insts. It was accordingly decided that it was desirable that the Commission should furnish concrete evidence of its ability to deal with these important parts of its duties before any advance could usefully be made by the Committee presided over by Dr. de Beer. Immediately, therefore that the Paris volumes of the Bulletin were published (with the excep- tion of the concluding portion of Volume 5, which it was judged could without harm be delayed for a time), steps were put in hand to start the publication of a new volume (Volume 2) of the Bulletin devoted entirely to applications for decisions on particular nomenclatorial problems and to proposals for the addi- tion of names to the Official Lists. The Committee of Management hopes therefore that, when it comes to submit its Report for the year 1951, it will be able to report that the foregoing obstacle to advance has been overcome by the publication of the volumes of the Bulletin referred to above, and a further stage reached towards devising the long-term financial plan which it has so much at heart. The Committee of Management realises that the other members of the Trust fully share its views as to the cardinal importance of securing a settlement of this vital problem and it believes therefore that the Trust will be glad to receive the foregoing Report on the action initiated by its Committee of Management at Stockholm in the summer of 1950 and of the measures taken and projected for furthering the ends which it was the object of that action to secure. 14. Presentation of Accounts for the Year 1950 and Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1950 : With the foregoing explanations the Committee of Management has pleasure in presenting to the Trust the Accounts for the year 1950 and the Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1950. In doing so, the Com- mittee of Management once again has the pleasant duty of recording its thanks to its Honorary Managing Director and Secretary (Mr. Francis Hemming) and to his Honorary Personal Assistant, his wife (Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming) for the services which they have rendered during the year, to Mrs. C. Rosner, the Publications Officer, and to the Auditors of the Trust, Messrs W. B. Keen & Co., Chartered Accountants, and their representative Mr. R. W. M. Taylor, for the constant assistance freely given during the year under review. Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 8.W.7, England. 24th October 1951. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 367 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Accounts for the Year 1950 368 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR / Incorporated under the Companies Balance Sheet— 1949 £ “3 SB. ie Semen REVENUE RESERVES (per Separate Accounts) : 422 “* Official List ’*’ Suspense Account she Bt 422 1 8 98 Office Equipment Reserve ee eh nae 97 16 8 1,349 829 Income and Expenditure Account—Balance ... 2,547 15 7 3,067 13 11 Proviston for Cost of Revision of International Code : ** International Code (Publication) ’’ Suspense 800 Account (per separate account) ae pone 1,000 0 0 LIABILITIES : 3,334 Sundry Creditors ... a ext fee or 241 8 5 £5,483 £4,309 2 4 We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our of account have been kept so far as appears from our examination of those books. We have are in agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of our information — the Companies Act, 1948, in the mannor so required, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair Account gives a true and fair view of the Excess of Income over Expenditure for the year ended Finsbury Circus House, Blomfield Street, LONDON, E.C.2. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 369 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Act, 1929. (Limited by Guarantee) 31st December 1950 1949 £ £ Frxep ASSETS : ' Office Equipment : | j Book Value at 3lst Dec., 1947 (being for the | Companies Act 1948 the 112 value at 1st July 1948) Ly Ua Br a Additions since to 3lst Dec., 98 1949 at cost nies - 98 3 3 Less Depreciation : 5 wi To 31st December 1949 ... SIR ins 179 31 20 For year to date ... e. Ura et 48 19 bo 161 7 CuRRENT ASSETS : , Amounts due for Sees tones 45 etc., valued at a 311 16 4 Balance at Bank and Cash | in 5,304 5,259 Hand et x8 3,836 4 5 4,148 0 9 —_— (Note—Stock of Publications not valued) —-—- _ £5,483 £4,309 2 4 FRANCIS HEMMING Members of the A. S. PANKHURST Committee of Management knowledge and belief were necessary for the purpose of our audit. In our opinion proper books _ examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Income and Expenditure Account, which and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required by view of the state of the Trust’s affairs at 31st December 1950, and the Income and Expenditure: on that date. f ~W.B. KEEN & Co. Chartered Accountants. Ist October, 1950. ; 370 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Income and Expenditure Account for 1949 INCOME £ £ £8: dy) Segsae To Sales of Publications : 113 Opinions and Declarations... Sy ess 40 16 0 149 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature | ae 2000 DSi ——————— 2,732 14 4 26 Donation ses eae aS 25 0 0 2,673 Grant from U.N.E.S.C. 0. a ditto per the International ‘Union of Bio- 145 logical Sciences... ues ae nae 120 0 0 £2,992 £2,877 14 4 159 To Balance brought down .. 1,919 3 3 670 Balance at 31st December 1949 brought forward 828 12 4 £829 £2,747 15 7 - “ Official List” 550 To Balance at 3lst December 1949 brought forward 422 1 8 £550 < £422 1 8 _ Office Equipment £98 To Balance at 31st December 1949 brought forward £97 16 8 “International Code (Publication) ” — To Transfer from Income and Expenditure Account 200 0 0 800 Balance at 31st December 1949 brought forward 800 0 0. £800 £1,000 0 0 ——— SS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 371 he Year ended 31st December 1950 1949 EXPENDITURE £ i ne MSP mL o. Bs 7G ae Beth By Administration Expenses : Salaries : 167 Publications Officer... 170 19 O 37 Stenographer Secretary 33 4 5 204 ——— 204 3 5 — Travelling Expenses “we Bi wae 7 a 204 Office Expenses... Sct “ee ae 249 17 2 21 Audit Fee ... Soc as ae es 21. 000 429° —— —————._ 546 OL 20 Depreciation of Office Equipment .. BET Vy Publications— Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- 2,384 clature ‘ 394 12 3 Balance carried down being excess of In- 159 come over Expenditure for the year... 1919), 3. 3 2,992 £2,877 14 4 By Transfer to “ International Code (Publica- tion)’’ Suspense Account towards cost _of —_— Revision of International Code ... SB hy 200 0 0 829 Balance carried to Balance Sheet . ee 2,547 15° 7 £829 £2,747 15 7 Suspense Account 128 By Expenditure during year. x —--—_— 422 Balance carried to Balance Sheet . “is 422 1 8 £550 ae 8!” Reserve : £98 By Balance carried to Balance Sheet ... ee £97 16 8 Suspense Account 800 By Balance carried to Balance Sheet ee 1,000 0 0 £800 £1,000 0 0 372 page 25. page 67. page 116. page 120. page 121. page 124. page 126. page 126. page 127. page 127. page 127. page 127. page 128. page 128. page 128. page 128. page 169. page 169. page 221. tise 283. page 287. page 288. page 317. page 336. page 346. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CORRIGENDA Line 10: substitute ** Dugés ” for ‘* Dugés.” Line 19: substitute “‘ current ” for “ currect.” Line 3 from bottom: substitute ‘‘ Teitigonia ” for ‘* T'ettigona.” Line 27: substitute ‘‘ fuviat.” for “ fluviat ”. Line 21: substitute * Lociniaria”’ for “ Lacinaria.” Line 24: delete whole line (Bulimus lineatus). Line 10: substitute ‘‘ acuta” for “‘ ocuta.”’ Line 21 (end): substitute “ biplicatus”’ for ‘‘ biplaticus.”’ Between lines 2 and 3: Insert new line: ‘ lineatus Draparnaud 1801 (67) . . . Bulimus lineatus.” Line 12: substitute ‘‘ Menke ”’ for ‘‘ Monke.”’ Line 14: substitute ‘‘ Linnaeus ”’ for ‘‘ Laimneus.” Line 20 (end): substitute ‘ parvula”’ for ‘‘ parvala.” Line 8 (end) : substitute ‘* lacustris” for “ lacuitris.”” Line 12: substitute ‘‘ Paladilhe ”’ for “* Paladilho.” Line 12 (end): substitute “ moitessierianwm”’ for “* moites- steranum.” Line 19 (end): substitute “ subtrancatum”’ for “ subtrancatum.” Line 12: substitute ‘‘ Jahreshefte ’’ for ‘“* Jahrshefle.” Line 22: substitute ‘‘ aurigerus”’ for “* awrigera.” Line 20: substitute ‘‘ 1938 ” for “ 1838.” Line 23: substitute “‘ uniformly observed, there would be no basis for questioning the specific trivial ”’ for the whole of this line. Line 16: substitute ‘‘ 1839” for ‘* 1939.” Line 1: delete ‘‘ almost.” Last 2 lines: substitute ‘‘ Myersia Viereck, 1912” for ** Rhy- podes Stal, 1868.” : Line 2: substitute ‘‘W. J. ARKELL ” for “ W. K. ARKELL.” Line 1: substitute “‘ EMENDATION ” for ““ AMENDATION.” Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INDEX TO AUTHORS OF APPLICATIONS AND OF COMMENTS Aczél, Martin L. Page 146-147, 155, 156-157 Alexander, F. Elizabeth S. Amsden, Thomas W. Arkell, W. J. 163, 164, 167-169, 178-180, 188-190, 194-197, 198-199, 204-207, 208-210, 217-219, 220-222, 224-233, 234-235, 331, 334 Baily, Joshua L. 334, 338, Balfour-Browne, J. Balss, Heinrich . . Banner, Albert H. Bartsch, Paul Beecher, William Benson, R. B. Bishop, S. C. Blackwelder, R. E. 44, Blake, Charles H. Blake, Emmett R. Bogert, C. M. Bradley, J. Chester 89-94. ‘96 170-172, 191-193, 200-203, 214-216, 222-223, 236-237, 339, 345 40-45 . 344 74 68 306-308 .. 308 ON APPLICATIONS Buitendijk, Alida M. Cagle, Fred R. .. Carr, A. F. Cazier, Mont A. Chace, Fenner A. Chapman, Frederick Charles, Sir John China, W. E. 373 Page 99-101 68 68 103, 109, 294-295, 318 Cochran, Doris .. Colbert, Edwin H. Conant, Roger .. Cooper, G. Arthur Corbet, A. Steven Cex, L: BR: 68 . 308 67-68 59-64, 238, 299-300, 324-331 Davis, D. Dwight Denison, Robert H. Donovan, D. T. Dougherty, Ellsworth C. 68 . 307 333, 335 253-276, 282-291, 308 Dunbar, Carl O. Dunkle, David H. . 323 . 307 374 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Page Dunn, E.R... “4 9 68 Hennig, W. bie x, .. 348 Dybas,Henry8. - .. .. 307 Hering, Erich Martin .. —.. 350 Ellis, A. EK. 119-125, 125-128 Hincks W. D. 18-19 Engel, H. se eS | tee RRA Hh apes , Kssig, E. 0. ave o Bee 69-72, 79-80, 81-82, 83-84, 86-87, 99-101 Fennah, R.G. .. re <~ a0 Hopkins, G. H. E. 296-297 Fowler, J. A. .. id 108 Inger, R. F. 68, 307 Fox, H. Munro .. .. 31-39, 322 Johnson, Murray L. 68, 352 Frizzell, D. L. .. ce sh ON: Jordan, Karl 21-22 Gaige, Helen T. Fe eal.) Keen, A. Myra .. 307, 332 Gisin, Hermann 56-58 Kéler, S. v. &, a seoue loyd, H LK. Se 2.68 lope Hover: Kirby, Harold 243-252 in, Cole ; a ois! 68 eee Klauber, L. M. .. 68, 351 Grant, Chapman £ 68 ; Knight, J. Brookes 307, 308 Grobman, A. B. ee sr a ) Lebour, Marie V. .. 340 Gurney, Ashley B. 106-109 Lemche, Henning 35-36 Gurey, Robert 74, 85 Loveridge, Arthur és -» SiGe Haas, Fritz ip $: 1, 307 Mayr, Ernst... be .. 308 Hall, E. Raymond aN .. 808 3 MeNeill, Frank A. > a. eal Hardy, D. Elmo ; 144-145, 153-154, 346-347 Miller, Robert R. ~ .. 308 Hartweg, Norman Se = poe Moore, Raymond (. .. .. 307 Heegaard, Poul .. 73, 102 Muller,S. W. .. fg .. e Hemming, Francis Myers,G.S. .. ‘9 68 6-17, 22-25, 29-30, 105, 112- ji 118, 131-133, 138, 173-177, Needler, A.B. .. a, .. 342 © 178-187, 211-213, 239-240, 277-281, 291-293, 315-317 Netting, M. Graham... sos z Bulletin. of Zoological Nomenclature 375 Page Page Newall, Norman D._... .. 308 Smart, John 139, 148-149, 150-151, 158-159 Nouvel, H. os .. 342-343 Smith,H.M. .. a ae: Oldroyd,H. .. va 189) 141 ee ae a ee Sollaud, E. he 7 .. 344 Stebbins, R. C. .. ie Mee Orton, Grace... me ee py, Ba BS Palmer, Katherine V. W. .. 307 Stickel, W.H. .. +s Bao OS Passos, Cyril F.dos .. 349-350 Stone, Alan 142-143, 152, 155, 160 Patterson, Bryan .. .. 307 Stermer,leif .. .. 319-322 Perkins,C.D. .... | @s Tate, George H. °. .. 308 Pater Ae? 7891S: Taylors. 2. ©) eg. 68 Pope, C. H. a: ne 2 oe Oe Taylor, Melvin A., Jr. .. .. 307 and Anetin 1, 307 Tottenham, C. E. .. 165-166 Rapp, William F 140 Usinger, Robert L. 308, 313-314 Reeside, John B., Jr. .. .. 307 Uvarov, B.P. .. cs -. Ul RehderHarald-A 12 van Cleave, H. J. sie 12-13 Richardson, Eugene S. OE Vandel, A. SAS Sie he Nay oe Romer, A.S. .. os “* 307 Vokes, Harold E. a“ 31-32 Sabrosky, C. W. «184-138 Wagner, Wilhelm .. 301-304 Sailer, R. I. :. y _. 313 Weller, J. Marvin me 3% OUT St. Joseph, J. K. a eae Wells, John W. .. .. 307, 308 Sanborn, Colin Campbell eae Wenzel, Rupert a ... 307 Schmidt, Karl P. .. 67-68, 307 Winckworth, R. 11, 88, 298, 312 Schmitt, WaldoL. .. .. 340 | Woodward,B.B. .. .. 9 Shreve, Benjamin an es Wright, AS | Sea 2 336, 337 Sinclair,G. Winston .. 306-308 Zangerl, Rainer . . eh f OOE SS ee . t's Zimmer, John T. a .. 308 F Pardal, et oG fe oF et eee | 4a ay Stal bod % rm : A 2 the ~ aw fave oe ut ) va Ace «! peas *, a =< ~ * _~ s 5 ‘ ce fe ~ . ‘ * : { esty +a K i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUBJECT INDEX Abida ‘Turton, 1831 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Heirons f with ea secale epee, 1801, as type species Acanthinula Beck, 1847 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eal. with Helix aculeata Miller a F. es 1774, as type species Acanthocnema Costa, 1859 (Class Insecta, Order Cone ae at suppression of, under the plenary powers proposed addition of, to the oi gal Index a Rapes and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology a _ Acanthocnema Becker, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order bie ee pie validation of, under the plenary powers advertisement of the above proposal proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ees with Cordylura nigrimana Zetterstedt, 1846, as type species Acantholyda Costa, 1894 (Class Insecta, Order Byrenopiens), Peppoees, valida- tion of, under the plenary powers advertisement of the above proposal .. “rd + -- ate sts proposed addition of, to the Official Inst of Generic Names in sate iii with Tenthredo erythrocephala Linnaeus, 1758, as type species .. Acheta Linnaeus, 1758, proposed addition of, to the eee a Index os Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Acheta Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in citi a with eens domesticus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species . : ie acicula Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Buccinum acicula) (Class: Gastropoda) (trivial name of type species of Cecilioides Férussac, 1814), proposed addition of, to the ee 2 List a pica Pi Trivial Names in Zoology ots oe 377 Page 119 119 46 46 46 34 46 46 34 46 117 117 124 378 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Acrida Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) proposed validation of, under the srg’ A ae as of subgeneric status as from Linneaus, 1758 ne : ms 2 se ae ee 106-109, 116 advertisement of the above proposal 98 proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of Gryllus turritus Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of 116 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 111 comments on the above proposal si EHS, rs = 109-118 Acroloxus Beck, 1837 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Ree y with Patella lacustris anger 1758, as type species : oe se 120 Actaletes Giard, 1889 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in edeet with Actaletes Bisse Giard, 1889, as type species 56 aculeata Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helia aculeaia) (Class Gastropoda) (trivial name of type species of Acanthinula Beck, 1847), hay oily addition of, to the a aoe List of re Trivial Names in Zoology 124 acuminata loff & Tiflov, 1946 (as published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) acuminata and applied to species numbered “‘ 68 ”’) (Class Insecta, Order ebay le a validation of, under the plenary powers 38 Ne “fe oe 30) ee advertisement of the above proposal 242 proposed addition of, to the ise de List wv ce? Trivial Names in Zoology . 297 acuminata loff & Tiflov, 1946 (as inadvertently published in the combination Rhadinopsylla (Rectofrontia) (acuminata and applied to species numbered 62”) (Class Insecta, Order pe reo gee Le Puan ge aay of, under the plenary powers ae a ed advertisement of the above proposal _ 242 proposed addition of, to the Official Index i wae and Invalid ss Trivial Names in Zoology 297 acuta Draparnaud, 1805 (as published in the binominal combination Physa acuta) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ealieaats List af Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 126 : : | 3 Z . = j d q Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 379 ak: Page acuta Rafinesque, 1831, Pleurocera (Class Gastropoda, Order Mesogastropoda), proposed designation of, under the iat ae ers, to be the type = of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 . 17 proposed addition of, to the pried. List ov egiie Trivial Names in pot 17 aeneus Scopoli, 1763, Cimex (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed designation of, under the plenary powers, to be the ‘i pe iota of ie i coris Hahn, 1834 . fe ms fa xis? (204 proposed addition of, to the tsa List = epee Trivial Names in Zoology . ak s 295 aequinoctialis Lund, 1793 (as published in the binominal combination Scyllaris aequinoctialis) (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (trivial name of type species of Scyllarides Gill, 1898), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology if ; : 82 Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Z saa with Ammonites scipionianus d’Orbigny, 1844, as type species . eee Pdr ajax Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio _ ajax) (Class Insecta, Order ogee dee are suppression of, under the plenary powers a : ne : es 52 .. 26-29 . question of whether should be (1) suppressed or (2) preserved for the North American Swallowtail Butterfly commonly known as P. marcellus Cramer [1777]. under the plenary powers .. ae oe ae .. 29-30 advertisement of the above proposal . . ne aid sie ct We 3 comments on the above proposal iy a2 a ee 349-350 albicans Bosc [1801-1802] (as published in the binominal combination Ocypoda albicans) (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), request for views of specialists regarding possible use of plenary powers to validate, as trivial name of Sand Crab. . ae is ae 4 A 2 Be fr ss, L056 advertisement of the above enquiry .. Fe ad Se x ae 98 albinus Nicolet, 1842 (as published in the binominal combination Cythoderus albinus) (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) (trivial name of type species of Cyphoderus Nicolet, 1842), proposed addition of, to the ae List i Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ne 58 albus Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Planorbis albus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the sie: List ot cae Trivial Names in Zoology be ; 126 380 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page pees Oppel, 1862 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites algovianus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name. of type species of Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885 and Seguenziceras | Levi, 1896), proposed addition of, to the cat List i aus Trivial Names in Zoology .. ie 210 alliaria Miller, 1822 (as published in the binominal combination Helix alliaria) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Pe see List g Specific Privial Names in Zoology oa : 126 alpestris Alder, 1838'(as published in the binominal combination Vertigo alpestris) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Becina List os Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. 126 Alpheus Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order ili a0 si i ERI sion of, under the plenary powers ee 71 proposed addition of, to the iat Index ss sib and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Ae 72 Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed valida- tion of, under the plenary powers, for the Snapping Shrimps -_... .. 69-72 advertisement of the above proposal .. is A Ads he Ne 66 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in apie with Alpheus avarus Fabricius, 1798, as type species .. 72 comments on the above proposal ae ee 3 whe 73-80, 340-344 ambulans Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Podura ambulans) (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) (trivial name of type species of Onychiurus Gervais, 1841), proposed addition of, to the o ee List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology... - 58 Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Geter ae proposed suppression of, under the plenary powers .. 202 advertisement of the above proposal .. ae are ae a .. 162 proposed addition of, to the cancels Index a canines and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Ly 202 comments on the above proposal .. Pa x A 2 .. 335-6 amnica Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Tellina amnica) (Class Pelecypoda) (trivial name of type species of Pisidiwm Pfeiffer, 1821), proposed addition of, to the Offical List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology # he ae oe oh ms: jon 123 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature anaiimus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Mytilus anatinus) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the acs List a Specific Trivial Names in Zoology be Ancylus Miller (O. F.), 1774 (Class. Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in weg with oy ‘eam Miller (O. F.), 1774, as type species anglicus Wood, 1828 (as published in the binominal combination Turbo anglicus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the epi List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology angulata Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea angulata) (Claas Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the “cial List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Angulaticeras Quenstedt, 1883 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammoncidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ‘cincrid with Ammonites lacunatus Buckman (J.), 1844, as type species angulatus Sowerby (J.), 1815 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites angulatus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed suppression of, under Ha plenary powers : os a 2 proposed addition of, to the staat Index a reat and Invalid ee c Trivial Names in Zoology angulatus Schlotheim, 1820 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites angulatus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Schotheimia Bayle, 1878), proposed validation of, under the plenary powers aie 3 ed Set a proposed direction, under the plenary powers, of application of advertisement of the above proposals ... proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zooloqy comment on the above proposals angusta Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea angusta) (Class Cty auras aac aoe ession of, under the ere powers proposed addition of, to the ne Index g sgt and Invalid eat si Trivial Names in Zoology angustior Jeffreys, 1830 (as published in the binomjnal combination Vertigo angustior) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the sh aia: List cs Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : 381 Page 128 120 126 330 206 206 ‘ 382 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature antarctica Lubbock, 1876 (as published in the binominal combination Tull- bergia antarctica) (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) (trivial name of type species of T'ullbergia Lubbock, 1876), proposed addition of, to the aaa * List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology antivertigo Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination _ Pupa antivertigo) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the cs pie List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ff A phidius Nees, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Ge ae eh validation of, under the plenary powers advertisement of above proposal comment on the above proposal proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of Aphidius avenae Haliday, 1834, to be the type species of te ate me proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Aplexa Fleming, 1820 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in tes with Bulla aie ene 1758, as type species 2 aquaticus Bourlet, 1842 (as published in the binominal combination Smin- thurus aquaticus) (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) (trivial name of type species of Sminthurides Borner, 1906), proposed addition of, to the be as List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Helix arbustorum) (Class Gastropoda) (trivial name of type species of Arianta Turton, 1831), proposed addition of, to the Liisi List is Speane Trivial Names in Zoology arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea arcuata) (Class Pelecypoda) (trivial name of type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801), proposed definition of application of, and addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. arenaria Bouchard-Chantereux, 1837 (as published in the binominal combina- tion Succinea arenaria) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Arianta Turton, 1831 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Helix arbustorum eon 1758, as type species re ote “i Gi. Sh Air oe 5 oe Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883 (Class Rgeieee ents Order Lang. question whether validly published comment on the above question ae = 4s oP ie ‘> Page 58 126 120 58 124 330 126 120 209 337 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 383 Page rdesesteeian Seguenza, 1885 (Class Cephalopoda, Order mam iat pa ee for ruling regarding nomenclatorial status. of a 208-210 ’ Arietites Waagen, 1869 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in at ant es with Ammonites bucklandi Sowerby (J.), 1816, as type species . . i 202 Arion Férussac, 1819 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Limax ater Linnaeus, 1758, as type species Pe Bu as me es we Se Ar k 120 Des enibrcess Buckman, 1924 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Dimepea ag proposed validation of, under the plenary powers .. : 214-216 advertisement of the above proposal .. ah ye oi oh See eh PY proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eres with Arisphinctes ariprepes Buckman, 1924, as type species .. 5 AeA, Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation, under the plenary aie of Arnioceras cuneiforme Hyatt, 1867, to be the type species of . ars a Se ft Ae 222-223 advertisement of the above proposal .. of i ae % ae 6162 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. 219 - comment on the above proposal 3c oe Be Se o Ni oo Artheneis Spinola, 1837 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed designation, under the plenary Penne of Artheneis ion eolata nae, 1837, to be the type species of : A : ” 313-317 advertisement of the above proposal , er 8 See Be nee oOD proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 314, 317 comments on the above proposal nt ee ao a: ae 315-318 asper Lamarck, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten asper) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed validation of, under the plenary powers 236-237 advertisement of the above proposal .. oe Ne oy Are ape en ie proposed addition of, to the Ob cial List ee ras Trivial Names in Zoology . 236 comment on the above proposals ot ofc =, ae * won tao aspersa Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix aspersa) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Kise List af Specific Trivial Names in Zoology as : 7" , 126 384 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Assiminea Fleming, 1828 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in tics with Assiminca is mie Fleming, 1828, as type species Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed _ addition of, to the Official List of Generic-Names in sabia! with Ammonites ' stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815, as type species ater Linnaeus, 1758, Cimex (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed designation of, under the Hue alii to be the type a tines of ig ce Fabricius, 1803 : é ay proposed addition of, to the CBee: List of Hpeeihie Trivial Names in Zoology . ater Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Limazx ater) (Class Gastropoda) (trivial name of type species of Arion Férussac, 1819), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation, under the plenary powers of Ammonites pseudo- Page 120 . 297 104 104 mutabilis de Loriol, 1874, to be the type species of .. se vr 188-190 advertisement of the above proposal proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology auricularia Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Helix auricularia) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : ; ti at aurigera Oppel, 1856 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites aurigera) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Siemiradzkia Hyatt, 1900), proposed addition of, to the oe List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology aurita Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Cicada aurita) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (trivial name of type species of Ledra Fabricius, 1803), proposed addition of, to the Ay cat List qi S ee Trivial Names in Zoology avarus Fabricius, 1798 (as published in the binominal combination Alpheus avarus) (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (trivial name of type species of Alpheus Fabricius, 1798), proposed addition of, to the eo igs List Sh Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Af avenae Haliday, 1834, Aphidius (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), proposed designation of, under the io et eda to be the hed oes of Aphidius Nees, 1818 .. _ proposed addition of, to the Oficial List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 162 189. 126 169 118 72 19 19 eS et la et lillie 1 ‘ . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Azeca Fleming, 1828 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Officral List of Generic Names in siiliddiaed) with Turbo tridens is ati 1799, as type "Species Balea Gray, 1824 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in iiss with ee aca pes 1801, as type species barbicornis Fabricius, 1775 (as published in the binominal combination Curculio barbicornis) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology , barbicornis Latreille, 1804 (as published in the binominal combination Rhina barbicornis) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, Curculio (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed designation of, under the ened oe to be the oo ie a of Rhina Latreille, [1802-1803] proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology baylet Salfeld, 1913, Pictonia (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of, under the sort ave to be the het pgp cd of Pictonia Bayle, 1878 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology bidentata Montagu, 1808 (as published in the binominal combination Voluta bidentata) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Leuco- phytia Winckworth, 1949), proposed addition of, to the ts saat List A Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : : bifrons Bruguiére, 1789 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites bifrons) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867), proposed addition of, to the Meni cial List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology . Bigotites Nicolesco, 1918 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in anise! y with mip es petri Nicolesco, 1917, as type species bilocularis Hisinger, 1799 (as published in the binominal combination Anomia bilocularis) (trivial name of type species of Conchidiwm Oehlert, 1887) (Class Brachiopoda), ore addition of, to the sil wate List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. . Hie pfs % ; 385 Page 120 120 54 54 186 187 124 199 227 94 386 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature biplicatus Montagu, 1803 (as published in the binominal combination Z'urbo biplicatus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Pace List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology by Biplices Siemiradzki, 1891, proposed addition. of, to the CR Index “AF Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology os blatiae Biitschli, 1878 (as published in the binominal combination Amoeba blattae) (Class Rhizopoda) (trivial name of type species of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879), proposed addition of, to the ReoaT ¢ List of pin es ic Trivial Names in Zoology : Bonnet, Pierre, elected to be a Member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature } Bourkelamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammo- noidea), ee addition of, to the is nied List ca Generic Names in Zoology : ‘ : : if M6 Bourletiella Banks, 1899 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ee with Sminthurus hortensis Fitch, 1863, as type species brongniarti Sowerby, 1817 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites brongniart?) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology . A bronni Spath, 1938 (as published in the binominal combination Liparoceras bronni) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of, under the plenary powers, to be the type species of Liparoceras Hyatt, 1867 proposed addition of, to the Sail List ‘i aires Trivial Names in Zoology 2 bucklandi Sowerby (J.), 1816 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites bucklandt) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Arietites Waagen, 1869), wena addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. Bulla Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orphoptera), proposed addition of, to the OfficialIndex of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Cadoceras Fischer, 1882 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in see: y with Ammonites sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814, as type species me ee t- Page 126. /196 280 | Oo 230 56 165 202 | 117 227 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 387 Page Cadomites Munier-Chalmas, 1892 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Ammonites deslongchampsi (Defrance M8) d’Orbigny, 1846, as type species 227 calloviensis Sowerby (J.), 1815 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites calloviensis) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), (trivial name of type species of Sigaloceras Hyatt, 1900), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. a ae ee eae campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] (as published in the binominal combination Pipunculus campestris) (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), (trivial name of type species of Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803]), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. aye 140, 149, 347 cantiana Montagu, 1803 (as published in the binominal combination Helix cantiana) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Ene Y. Foe *. Os 7 126 Capsus Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed designa- tion, under the plenary alg of Cimex ater Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of . oy, Ae 5 se ay 3 de 103-104 advertisement of the above proposal .. be ore ae ay 24 89 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. 104 comment on the above proposal he Ne ts AC = .. 338 Cardinides Rathbun, 1897 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Offiet ictal Index at Br Nasir sy and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. ae aie Le Se reap SLO Carcinus Latreille, 1796 (Class Crustacea, Order Sram ode), proposed suppression of, under the plenary powers .. 101 proposed addition of, to the ae Index of cong and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology we 101 Carcinus Leach, 1814 (Class Crustacea, Onder eine ciety proposed validation of, under the plenary powers... <% me : ae oc 99-101 advertisement of the above proposal .. oe sic we 2% Se 98 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eee with Cancer maenas Linnaeus, 1758, as type species .. 101 Cardinia Agassiz, 1838, proposed addition of, to the ote Bs Index a asi and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. of 63 388 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Cardinia Roemer, 1839 (Class peat abe cai Kc of, under the plenary powers proposed addition of, to the sama Index of sai and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Cardinia Agassiz, [1840] (Class Leap areeEar as pr ere pig lesins Hane of, under the plenary powers ? proposed addition of, to the api Index ¥ Pee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology y comment on the above proposal Cardinia Agassiz, [1841] (Class Lamellibranchiata), proposed validation of, under the plenary powers, for use in its accustomed sense advertisement of the above proposal .. ate ne ae ° proposed designation, under the plenary pe of Unio listeri priac 1817, to be the type species of He : te proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology carinatus Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Planorbis carinatus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Sica Inst a Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Carychium Miller (O.F.), 1774 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in salaics with Carychium minimum Miiller (O. F.), 1774, as type species ‘ ae ete side Cecilioides Férussac, 1814 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in py with Buccinum acicula Miller (O. F.), 1774, as type species Cercopis Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generio Names in spies coh with Cicada ‘ite lenta Scopoli, 1763, as type species chermesina Renier (erroneously alleged to have appeared in 1804 in the binominal combination Amphinome chermesina), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Class ees Order ci hi ie deme validation of, under the plenary powers advertisement of the above proposal .. ae a ve proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in si ag with Tipula plumosa Linnaeus, 1758, as type species .. : comment on the above proposal 334 . 59-64 34 63 63 126 120 120 302 300 151 130 16] 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order i sigh Laid ged validation of, under the plenary powers advertisement of the above proposal proposed designation, under the ee y one ers, of Musca pumilionis to be the type species of i ne ns af proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 389 Page 136 130 136 136 comments on the above proposal ey ae ms Se SS 138, 139 cincta Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Podura cincta) (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) (trivial name of type species of Orchesella Templeton, 1835), proposed addition of, to the aha List vf Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : einctella Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Helia cinctella) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Hygromia Risso, 1826), Lape ose addition of, to the Ose tal List ve acid Trivial Names in Zoology .. ctnereoniger Wolf, 1803 (as published in the binominal combination Limax cinereoniger) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the sid hg List 2 Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ‘ 4 circumscriptus Johnston, 1828 (as published in the binominal combination Arion circumscriptus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the . Official List of Generic Names in be with Turbo bidens Montagu, 1803, as type species clavicornis Fabricius, 1794 (as published in the binominal combination Lygacus clavicornis) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (oldest available name for type species of Rhypodes Stal, 1868), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : : coburgensis Berger, 1833 (as published in the binominal combination Thalassides coburgensis) (Class Pepe irenchiaten.. Ereposed euperyan of, under the plenary powers .. an proposed addition of, to the Official Index ov ei and Invalid ca _Privial Names in Zoology .. we coccinea Renier (included in the combination Amphinome coccinea in 1804, in a work not ‘ published * within the meaning of the Régles), proposed addition of, to the Official Index nid pee and Invalid Fie Trivial Names in Zoology 124 126 120 63 64 300 390 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Cochlicella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in de with Helix conoidea niin ass 1801, as type species coli Lésch, 1875 (as published in the binominal combination Amoeba colt) (Class Rhizopoda), proposed suppression of, under the plenary powers proposed addition of, to the Oficial Index ss nmin and Invalid sc Trivial Names in Zoology : coli Grassi, 1879 (as published in the binominal combination Amoeba colz) (Class Rhizopoda), proposed validation of, under the plenary powers re proposed direction, under the plenary powers, of application of proposed designation, under the plenary powers, to be the type species of Entamoeba Casagrandi & si aippaawe 1895, and of Léschia Chatton & Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912 proposed addition of, to the Gamat List ie prot Trivial Names in Zoology . Collembola, proposed addition to the Official List sie Generic Names in sss. of the names of thirteen genera in : Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature : personnel of Bonnet, Pierre elected to be a Commissioner .. Esaki, Teiso, elected to be a Commissioner Hering, Erich Martin, elected to be a Commissioner . . Jaezewski, Tadeusz, re-elected to be a Commissioner. . Jordan, Karl, retirement of, from Membership of Commission Mertens, Robert, elected to be a Commissioner Riley, Norman Denbigh, elected to be a Commissioner Rode, Paul, death of, reported .. Common Shrimp, generic name for, see Crangon Fabricius, 1798. complanata Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Helix complanata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ier List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ye : concavus Sowerby (J.), 1915 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites concavus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), (trivial name of type species of Ludwigella Buckman (S.), 1901, proposed addition of, to the Oficial List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Page 120 279 281 279 280 280 281 - 56-58 rank aana a 126 228 ——— eee eC ee —_—s Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Conchidium Hisinger, 1799, REED peed to be declared to 9 tang: no status in zoological nomenclature . proposed addition of, to the a Index o intial and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology she Conchidium Wahlenberg, 1821, proposed to be declared a cheironym proposed addition of, to the saan Index ao ee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology * Conchidium Bronn, 1848, gaily to be declared to b caiae no status in zoological nomenclature proposed addition of, to the energies Index av Sa Asap and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ve Conchidium Oehlert, 1887 (Class Brachiopoda), proposed validation of, under the plenary powers, for use in its accustomed sense advertisement of the above proposal proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eid. with Anomia bilocularis Hisinger, 1799, as type species . comments on the above proposal conoidea Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Helix conoidea) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Cochlicella Férussac, 1821), sauna addition of, to the cna List av greys Trivial Names in Zoology. . contorta Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Helix contorta) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ings 365 List Ks Specific Trivial Names in Zoology st : Corbicula Megerle von Muehlfeld, 1811 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Sr a with Tellina nan Miiller (O. F.), 1774, as type species cornea Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Helix > cornea)(Class Gastropoda),proposed addition of, to the ae List a ae Trivial Names in Zoology a cornea Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Tellina cornea) (Class Pelecypoda), a ema addition of, to the ms ata List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology p Coroniceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in =e fa with Ammonites kridion Hehl in Zieten [1830], as type species . . : ee oa 391 Page 93 93 93 94 93 93 . 89-94 66 93 . 95-96 124 126 119 126 128 392 Bulletin of Zoological N. omenclature- Page corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767 (as published in the binominal combination Musca corrigiolata) (trivial name of type species of T'ylos Meigen, 1800 and of Micropeza Meigen, 1803), proposed addition of, to the os List ei = cific Trivial Names in Zoology .. 157, 159 costata Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Melix costata (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the spark: List o yh: Trivial Names in Zoology se 126 cotovui Simionescu, 1907 (as published in the binominal combination Peris- phinctes cotovut) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (oldest available trivial name for type species of Arisphinctes Buckman, 1924), proposed addi- tion of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. . 215 Crago Lamarck, 1801 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. 72 crangon(Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer crangon) (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (trivial name of type species of Crangon Fabricius, 1798), proposed addition of, to the ne List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology “ee 72 Crangon Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order 5 el rg de Siok begaee sion of, under the plenary powers AE 71 proposed addition of, to the slate Index os aor tes and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology oe 72 Crangon Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), ap cea valida- tion of, under the plenary powers, for the Common Shrimp . . 69-72 advertisement of the above proposal .. Ke he ae v2 a 66 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in oe with Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758, as type species .. 72 comments on the above proposal... ee ae =F 73-80, 340-344 crassus Philipsson, 1788 (as published in the binominal combination Unio crassus) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the be fet 78 List 8 la Trivial Names in Zoology .. Uc 128 crista Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Nautilus crista) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Barret List K3 Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 7 ‘ 126 cristata Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Valvaia cristata) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Valvata Miller (O. F.), 1774), proposed addition of, to the pate List “ fore Trivial Names in Zoology § 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature crystallina Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix erystallina) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ‘erste List of Specifie Trivial Names in Zoology SF Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863 a a Insecta, Order ce din coma of availability of proposed addition of, to the 5: gr Index of agers and Invalid Generic Names én Zoology cuneiforme Hyatt, 1867 (as published in the binominal combination Arnio- ceras cunetforme) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of, under the ney. ROVE: to be the age species of Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 oi : ae re proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology curvicollis Bourlet, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Lepi- docyrtus curvicollis) (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) (trivial name of type species of Lepidocyrtus Bourlet, 1839), proposed addition of, to the pci List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ‘ cygneus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Mytilus cygneus) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Ss aad List id Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; ? cylindraceus da Costa, 1778 (as published in the binominal combination Turbo cylindraceus) (Class Gastropoda) (oldest available name for type species of Lauria Gray, 1840), proposed addition of, to the se List os Leeda Trivial Names in Zoology ; cylindrica Férussac, 1807 (as published in the binominal combination Vertigo cylindrica) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the rig List ed Specific Trivial Names in Zoology cymodoce d’Orbigny, 1850 (as published in the binominal combination Ammo- nites cymodoce) (Class Cephalopoda, Order idiimaia aki SUREESS: sion of, under the plenary powers ~ advertisement of the above proposal proposed addition of, to the Oniesar ds Index av Rejected and Invalid hice Trivial Names in Zoology .. Cyphoderus (emend. of Cyphodeirus) Nicolet, 1842 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Cyphoderus albinus Nicolet, 1842, as type species .. i 393 Page 126 21-25 25 219 219 58 128 124 126 187 161 187 66 394 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature decollata Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Heliz decollata) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Rumina Risso, 1826), proposed addition of, to the ae List of biaaiatial Trivial Names in Zoology , dentatus Rudolphi, 1803 (as published in the binominal combination Strongylus dentatus) (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida) (trivial name of type species of Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in asides and Pepe = definition of apeleats ion of dentatus Diesing, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Stephanurus dentatus) (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida), question whether should 124 288 be preserved, under the plenary powers, as name for kidney worm of swine 282-293 advertisement of above case proposed addition of, to the Oficial List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology or to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, according to decision on above question .. deslongschampsi (Defrance MS). d’Orbigny, 1846 (as published in the bino- minal combination Ammonites deslongschampsi) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), (trivial name of type species of Cadomites Munier- Chalmas, 1892), proposed addition of, to the cas List o BPO Trivial Names in Zoology a. detrita Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix detrita (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the mtg List gf apne Trivial Names in Zoology diaphana Studer, 1820 (as published in the binominal combination Helix diaphana) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Vitrea Fitzinger, 1833), Peay addition of, to the Cie! List av Seat Trivial Names in Zoology Dihora [Anon.], 1842 (Class Lamellibranchiata), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology dilatatus Gould, 1841 (as published in the binominal combination Planorbis dilatatus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ara List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Ke Dilophus Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed addition of, to’ the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. Discus’ Fitzinger, 1833 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in naireh with Helix ruderata fa nek ny 1821, as type species 242 287 229 — 126 124 64 126 154 121 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature dispansus Lycett, 1860 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites dispansus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammongjdea), (trivial name of type species of Phlyseogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. 5 domesticus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus domesticus) (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) (trivial name of type species of Acheta Fabricius, 1775), proposed addition of, to the Biggar List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology . Dorilas Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order aan ert Ree of, under the plenary powers ae : 140, advertisement of the above proposal proposed addition of, to the a Index i ee, and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. = 140, comments on the above proposal ef - ad 141-149, 346-347, proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] as type species Dorylas Kertesz, 1910 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed addition of, _to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology draparnaldi Beck, 1838 (as published in the binominal combination Helicella draparnaldi) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ye a List a Specific Trivial Names in Zoology me Dreissena van Beneden, 1835 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Tee pee err. i Mytilus) polymorphus Pallas, 1771, as type species dubia Draparnaud, 1805 (as published in the binominal combination Clausilia dubia) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the aba List aw Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ts dupiniana d’Orbigny, 1843 (as published in the binominal combination Nerinea dupiniana) (Class Gastropoda) (type species of Nerinella Sharpe, 1850), a esaA addition of, to the Kia eee List ae esi Trivial Names in Zoology .. dysenteriae Councilman & Lafleur, 1891 (as published in the binominal combination Amoeba dysenteriae) DE i aaa oe aga Bat sa of, under the plenary powers - proposed addition of, to the ee Index os oe and Invalid one Trivial Names in Zoology : 395 Page 229 118 149 130 149 348 347 347 126 119 126 300 279 281 396 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature dysenterica Pfeiffer, 1888 (as published in the binominal combination Amoeba dysenterica) ae asa vari wey ree sa ae ina of, under the chine powers proposed addition of, to the Fetes Index av oe and ae heer Trivial Names in Zoology Echioceras Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in raat with Ammonites raricostatus Zieten, [1831], as type species edentula Draparnaud, 1805 (as published in the binominal combination Pupa edentula) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ee ees List o Specific Trivial Names in Zoology xe edulis Linnaeus, 1758, Mytilus (Class Pelecypoda, Order Filibranchiata) pro-. posed designation of, under the plenary powers, to be the type porn of Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758, thereby validating entry in Opinion 94 : elegans Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Nerita elegans) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Pomatias Studer, 1789), proposed addition of, to the in List of Lessig Trivial Names in Zoology cic eleyuns Gmelin, 1791 (as published in the binominal combination Helix elegans) (Class Gastropoda), Beer addition of, to the OEP. List a Specific Trivial Names in Zoology elegans Risso, 1826 (as published in the binominal combination Succinea elegans) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Sains List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : : Ellipsolithes Montfort, 1808 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Piansror sca proposed suppression of, under the plenary powers . advertisement of the above proposal proposed addition of, to the Sada Index a ss and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology comment on the above proposal Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 (Class Rhizopoda), Entamoeba Casagrandi & Bar- bagallo, 1895, proposed to be declared not to be a homonym of : position on Official List of Generic Names, proposed confirmation of, with Amoeba blattae Biitschli, 1878, as type species Page 279 281 227 126 31-2 124 126 126 198 162 198 337 280 280 ee a Bulletin of Zoological. Nomenclature Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 (Class Sore RS dil pee to be declared not a homonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879 .. proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in saan with _ Amoeba coli Grassi, 1879, as type species Erichthus Latreille, 1817 (Class Crustacea, Order enon: prpposed os pression of, under the plenary powers .. proposed addition of, to the ere Index ov a and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ne erythrocephela Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Tenthredo erythrocephela) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (trivial name of type species of Acantholyda Costa, 1894), aio oe addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology . Esaki, Teiso, elected to be a Member of the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature. Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Set with Helix aes Miller sige F. Bi 1774, as type species Euprocerites Wetzel, 1950 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the ea Index aH se vege and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology excavatus Alder, 1830 (as published in the binominal combination Helix excavata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the deexud List oh Specific Trivial Names in Zoology es Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed designa- tion, under the ace sia of Cimex aeneus m Boopals 1763, to be the type species of : advertisement of the above proposal proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology falcifer Sowerby(J.), 1820, Ammonites (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammo- noidea), proposed designation of, under the apie Lp la to be the type Species of Harpoceras Waagen, 1869 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology fasciata Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Nerita fasciata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the bimene List = Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 35 397 Page 280 281 84 84 46 121 169 126 294 242 295 192 193 126 398 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature febrilis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Tipula febrilis) (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), (trivial name of type species of Philia Meigen, 1800), proposed addition of, to the eae List i gees Trivial ane in Zoology ; flavus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Limazx flavus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the eid List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology fluminalis Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Tellina fluminalis) (Class Pelecypoda) (trivial name of type species of Corbicula Megerle von Muehlfeld, 1811), proposed addition of, to the eho List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Nerita fluviatilis) (Class Gastropoda) (oldest available name for type species of Theodorus Montfort, 1810), proposed addition of, to the Pre iis List es Specific Trivial Names in Zoology fluviatilis Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Ancylus fluviatilis) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Ancylus Miiller (O. F.), 1774), proposed addition of, to the be List ao Pree Trivial Names in Zoology Ae fontinalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Bulla fontinalis) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ee List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology oe foveolata Spinola, 1837, Artheneis (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed designation of, under the Peery edge to be the type species of Page 154 126 123 125 124 126 Artheneis Spinola, 1837 , ie 313-317 proposed addition of, to the a aly List of re Trivial Names in Zoology . fragilis Lamarck, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Spirula fragilis) (Class Cephalopoda), proposed addition of, to the ial Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : Fruticicola Held, 1837 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ane with Helix er: Miller EA F. *) 1774, as type species fulva Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix fulva) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Huconulus Reinhardt, 1883), Levit addition of, to the alan List pied thei Trivial Names in Zoology .. sie 317 298 121 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature fusca Schott, 1893 (as published in the binominal combination Paronella fusca) (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) (trivial name of type species of Paronella Schott, 1893), proposed addition of, to the iia List e Pree Trivial Names in Zoology a fuscus Montagu, 1803 (as published in the binominal combination Turbo fuscus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ee List a! Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ne gagates Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Limazx gagates) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Milax Gray, 1855), a aa addition of, to the es List me cate Trivial Names in Zoology . Gamaris [H. S.], 1876 (Class Crustacea, Order eomatepora i arate oe pression of, under the plenary powers . proposed addition of, to the ag ge Index ot ee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Garantia Rollier, 1909 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the ae Index me Fee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. : Garantiana Hyatt, 1900 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the % Caieat Index of Heiected. and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Garantiana Mascke, 1907 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in esa with Ammonites garantianus d’Orbigny, 1846, as type species garantianus d’Orbigny, 1846 (as published in the binominal combination _ Ammonites garantianus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Garantiana Mascke, 1907), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : genicularis Waagen, 1869 (as published in the binominal combination Oeco- traustes genicularis) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Ocecotraustes Waagen, 1869), proposed addition of, to the Official List a Specific Trivial Names in Zoology , Geomalacus Allman, 1843 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in iets ha with Geomalacus maculosus Allman, 1843, as type species .. 399 Page 58 126 124 87 87 230 230 227 229 229 121 400 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. gigaxi Pfeiffer, 1850 (as published in the binominal combination Helix gigaxt) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the iit List ed pee Trivial Names in Zoology : Ginorga Gray, 1840, proposed addition of, to the a Index e pee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. . Ginorga Strickland, 1842 (Class Lamellibranchiata), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology | gioéni Philipsson, 1788 (as published in the binominal combination Tricla gioéni) (Class Gastropoda, Order apices asi ga SP aa of, under the plenary powers ah : proposed addition of, to the aE Index a ras a and Invalid : Trivial Names in Zoology .. Page - 126 63 63 36 36 Gioénia Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Gastropoda, Order is ican Pepa suppression of, under the plenary powers proposed addition of, to the i a Index st cgay and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; glabrum Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Buccinum glabrum) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ae List i Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Globicornis Latreille, 1829 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eisaad with Dermestes rufitarsis Panzer, 1796 as type species. . : Globites de Haan, 1825 (Class Cephalopoda, Order cag payee sbi suppression of, under the plenary powers advertisement of the above proposal . proposed addition of, to the Siictal Js Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology os Gmelin (J. F.), 1793, Systema Naturae (ed. 13) Vol. 3, see “‘ Petrificata.” goodalli Férussac, 1821 (as published in the combination Helix (Cochlodonta) goodalli) (Class Gastropoda) (oldest available name for type species of Azeca Fleming, 1828), proposed addition of, to the aia List a Save Trivial Names in Zoology 4 granulata Alder, 1830 (as published in the binominal combination Helix granulata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the oe List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 126 166 198 162 198 124 126 : | ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature -401 Page grayana Fleming, 1828 (as published in the binominal combination Assiminea grayana) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Assiminea Fleming, 1828), proposed addition of, to the sane List om si haa Trivial Names in Zoology ee 124 Gryllulus Uvarov, 1935 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 117 Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda), need for suppression of, under the plenary powers if, as proposed by M. Ranson, the name Gryphaea is to be accepted as from Lamarck, 1819, with poe racers Lamarck, 1819, as type species... 240 advertisement of the above proposal .. ue as oe ne Scena Ow question of type species of: comments on M. Ranson’s proposal. .324-333 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in aisle with Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, as type species 330 Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819 (Class Pelecypoda), need for use of the plenary powers, if this name to be validated with ee, piaisaibuas, Lamarck, 1819, as type species... 240 advertisement of the above proposal .. a3 = ae Ss aa> , L62 gryphus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Anomia gryphus) (Class pt cea eee Bs ace of, under the Gee powers... 330 proposed addition of, to the Cee Index ot pres and Invalid ict . Trivial Names in Zoology .. 331 Gypidia Dalman, 1828 (Class Brachiopoda), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. = 94 _ haliotidea Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Testacella haliotidea) (Class Gastropoda) (trivial name of type species of Testacella Draparnaud, 1801) proposed addition of, to the Scented List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology cs 124 Harpoceras Waagen, 1869 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), pro- posed designation, under the plenary ibe of Ammonites Ae Sowerby (J.), 1820, to be the type species of . ‘ 191-193 advertisement of the above proposal .. id or 3: Ae Soe: Se proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. 193 402 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature henslowana Sheppard, 1825 (as published in the binominal combination Tellina henslowana) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology... : Hering, Erich Martin, elected to be a Member of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature .. : heterophyllus Sowerby (J.), 1820 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites heterophyllus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Phylloceras Suess, 1865), et addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology A Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in aes with Am- monites bifrons Bruguiére, 1789, as type species Se hispida Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Helix hispida) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Bis List ot, Specific Trivial Names in Zoology =e histolytica Schaudinn, 1903 (as published in the binominal combination Entamoeba histolytica) (Class Rhizopoda), Le aye a a under the plenary powers, of application of 7 proposed addition of, to the cocaeaie List a ore Trivial Names in Zoology . hortensis Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix hortensis) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ES List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ere hortensis Férussac, 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Arion hortensis) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the a get List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology te hortensis Fitch, 1863 (as published in the binominal combination Sminthurus hortensis) (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) (trivial name of type species of Bourletiella Banks, 1899), proposed addition of, to the bintoaee List oo Specific Trivial Names in Zoology sa : Houttuyn (M.), 1785, Natuurlyke Historie, Vol. 3, see “ Petrificata.” humphriesianus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1825 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites humphriesianus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am- monoidea), (trivial name of type species of Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869), proposed addition of, to the nae Sede List . pe Trivial Names in Zoology s 199 199 126 279 281 126 126 58 229 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in esse with ae ae acutum fish ig a * naud, 1805, as type species Hygromia Risso, 1826 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ore. with Helix cinctella Fu tae 1801, as type species hypnorum Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Bulla hypnorum) (Class Gastropoda) (trivial name of type species of Aplexa Fleming, 1820), Danae addition of, to the i lees List a itis Trivial Names in Zoology incarnata Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix incarnata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Cticial List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Incubus Schrank, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order a L pepe suppression of, under the plenary powers proposed addition of, to the get Index i oe and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : inornata Dana, 1852 (as published in the binominal combination Lysio- ~ squilla inornata) (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda) (trivial name of type species of Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : intermedius Norman, 1852 (as published in the binominal combination Arion intermedius) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology NZ Fa intestinalis Blanchard, 1885 (as published in the binominal combination Amoeba intestinalis) (Class et Erponed dimiisiiatk of, under plenary powers aif : Sie ~proposed addition of, to the Official Indea oe santas and Invalid Sait _ Trivial Names in Zoology Me involuta (Salfeld M.S.) Spath, 1935, Rasenia (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of, under the Lape gs oe ease to be the type species of Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 ; proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Isotoma Bourlet, 1839 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ss Hidh with Isotoma viridis Bourlet, 1839, as type species .. 121 124 126 19 19 84 126 279 281 187 187 56 404. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Isotomurus Borner, 1903 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in pir seg with Podura palustris Miller, 1776, as type species ye 56 Jaczewski, Tadeusz, re-elected to be a Member of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature .. G 5 Jordan, Karl, retirement of, from Membership of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature .. on cic bie os ae 4 Jurassic Ammonites, proposed addition to the Official List ay Generic Names in Zoology of the names of twenty-one genera of .. a5 224-233 kidney worm of swine, question of correct trivial name for .. ing 282-293 knighti Sowerby (J.), 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Pentamerus knighti) (Class Brachiopoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology... ke ‘ 94 Kosmoceras Waagen, 1869 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), pro- posed designation, under the plenary powers, of Ammonites spinosus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1826, to be the type species of .. - aa 191-193 advertisement of the above proposal .. Lin ies ne he -. 162 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. 193 kridion Hehl in Zieten [1830] (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites kridion) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Coroniceras Hyatt, 1867), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. 229 Laciniaria Hartmann, 1844 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in shits with sey ae Piss 1801, as type species... 121 lactea Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix lactea) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ites: List av epervis Trivial Names in Zoology - 126 lacunatus Buckman (J.), 1844 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites lacunatus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Angulaticeras Quenstedt, 1883), proces addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology . 229 : : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature lacustris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Patella lacustris) (Class Gastropoda) (trivial name of type species of Acroloxrus Beck, 1837), proposed addition of, to the no aged List of Spates Trivial Names in Zoology : lacustris Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Tellina lacustris (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the oe List ‘4 Specific Trivial Names in Zoology f laevis Sowerby (J.), 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Pen- tamerus laevis (Class Eee, bk: Page eo oan & of, under the plenary powers or : - =n - ah proposed addition of, to the an i Index of caaiade and Invalid i Trivial Names in Zoology s laevis Alder, 1838 (as published in the binominal combination Planorbis laevis) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Caeht List ot Rapttie Trivial Names in Zoology lamberti Sowerby (J.), 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites lamberti) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Lamberticeras Kilian, 1910 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), pro- posed addition of, to the sae Index of ne and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Lamberticeras Buckman (S.), 1920 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in pens with Ammonites lamberti Sowerby (J.), 1819, as type species lamellata Jeffreys, 1830 (as published in the binominal combination Helix lamellata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the cae List ~ of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology laminatus Montagu, 1803 (as published in the binominal combination Turbo laminatus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ee List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology lapicida Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Helix _ lapicida) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Cee! List ~ of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : Lauria Gray, 1840 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in et with Geter umbilicata Sere 1801, as type species 405 Page 124 128 93 94 126 229 230 227 126 126 126 121 406 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature leacht Sowerby (J.), 1819 (as published in the binominal combination Am- monites leacht) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Quenstedtoceras (emend. of Quenstedioceras) Hyatt, 1877), proposed addition of, to the es aneaie List os ee Trivial Names in Zoology leachi Sheppard, 1823 (as published in the binominal combination Turbo leachi) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the beads List Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : Ledra Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in evel with Cicada aureta Linnaeus, 1758, as type species lens Férussac, 1821 (as published in the binominal combination Helix lens) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ie ates List of itic Trivial Names in Zoology - Lepidocyrtus Bourlet, 1839 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ine with iri docyrtus curvicollis Bourlet, 1839, as type species Leptopsylla Rothschild & Jordan, 1911 Pts Insecta, Order eS ae question of availability of proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eee with Pulex musculi Dugés, 1832, as type species : Leucophytia Winckworth, 1949 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ea with Voluta bidentata Montagu, 1808, as type species Aic ‘ Ligia Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order i Desotdal, Eeppored aE of, under the plenary powers proposed addition of, to the pec oy Index os at and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology - Ligia Fabricius, 1798 (Class Cpe § Order fee pike validation of, under the plenary powers advertisement of the above proposal . proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in bein with Oniscus oceanicus Linnaeus, 1767, as type species .. Page 229 126 117 126 56 21-25 25 121 101 101 99-101 98 101 comments on the above proposal ae he = A -. 102, 344-345 lignaria Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Bulla lignaria) (Class Gastropoda, Order Tectibranchiata) (trivial name of type species of Scaphander Montfort, 1810), proposed addition of, to the ss hela List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 407 Page lilljeborgi Westerlund, 1871 (as published in the combination Pwpa (Vertigo) lilljeborgi (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Osfe icial List of Specific Trivial Names in Sai a 127 Limulus Miller, 1785 (Class Merostomata), proposed validation of, under the plenary powers, thereby validating entry on the gag List of Generic Names in Zoology (correction of error in Opinion 104) : a 319-322 advertisement of the above proposal . . ee “ ie: ae oe 305 comments on the above proposal ote wh 4 is is 322-323 linearis Lowe, 1852 (as published in the binominal combination Pupa (Trunca- tellina) linearis) (Class Gastropoda) (trivial name of type species of Trwnca- tellina Lowe, 1852), proposed addition of, to the eee List a se Trivial Names in Zoology ; 124 lineatus Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Bulimus lineatus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the peas icial List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Ne : 124 Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. shterRae L Liogryphea Douvillé, 1904 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. jie ool LIiparoceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation, under the plenary svelte of ieee bronni Spath, 1838, to be type species of .. st ie 220-221 advertisement of the above proposal .. “ ate a ats ssp oh proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Sra Do ~ comment on the above proposal 54 53 sh a Aa ae OOo listert Sowerby, 1817, Unio (Class Lamellibranchiata) proposed designation of, under the plenary eae te to be the WE species of Cardinia Agassiz [1841] si os Se : - Aye Ae 3 63 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 64 littoralis Cuvier, 1797 (as published in the binominal combination Unio littoralis) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Off ictal List z Specific Trivial Names in Zoology sie : 128 Loschia Chatton & Lalung-Bonnaire, 1912 (Class Rhizopoda), proposed addition of, to the ae Index ao a deat and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. or 280 H 408 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : Page lubrica Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix lubrica) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the San List i Mech, Trivial Names in Zoology : . 127 Ludwigella Buckman (S.), 1901 (Class Cephalopoda, Order, Ammonoidea, proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in mine with Ammonites concavus Sowerby (J.), 1815, as type species .. 227 Lystosquilla Dana, 1852 (Class Crustacea, Order pagiagie tse Bain validation of, under the plenary powers... -. 83-84 advertisement of the above proposal .. “7 ae ote Se se 66 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ee with Lysiosquilla inornata Dana, 1852, as type species .. 84 comments on the above proposal Se SA pte a ape . 86, 344 Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of Ammonites macro- cephalus Schlotheim, 1813, to be the type species of .. ne Sa on, eG advertisement of the above proposal .. ote ae oh ae -. 161 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. 176 macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites macrocephalus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed direction, under the plenary powers, of application of .. 170-177 proposed designation, under the plenary powers, to be the bik eae of Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 .. as ae as : : . 176 advertisement of above proposal Ae ic “le = ba oo GR proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 177 maculosus Allman, 1843 (as published in the binominal combination Geoma- lacus maculosus) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Geomalacus Allman, 1843), proposed addition of, to the ic Gee List oe Specific Trivial Names in Zoology... 5 124 maenas Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer maenas) (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (trivial name of type species of Carcinus Leach, 1814), proposed addition of, to the Se aasee List nb gine Trivial Names in Zoology Ay ; 101 Magdalinus Germar, 1843 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed addi- . tion of, to the ee Index si si and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. ; 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 409 Page Magdalis Germar, 1817 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed validation -of, under the plenary powers, for use in its accustomed sense... .» 47-55 advertisement of the above proposal .. 6% - is x a 34 proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of .. ie Alc ive i 53 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 54 major Férussac, 1807 (as published in the binominal combination Heli- colimax major) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ea List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. - 127 Mantes Geoffroy, 1762, proposed addition of, to the ae Fs Indez: ov Heed and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology . ; 117 Mantis Linnaeus, 1758, proposed addition of, to the ee Index reiiiow and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. : 117 marginata Michaud, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination Paludina marginata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Cec List a Specific Trivial Names in Zoology he 127 maximus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Lima: maximus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Ss iaiaie List ies Specific Trivial Names in Zoology oe 127 Meigen, 1800, Nowvelle Classification des Mouches a deux oe ici procedure proposed for dealing with names published in... : -. 131-133 Mertens, Robert, elected to be a Member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature He : : ; : 5 Microcera Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed addition of, _to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. 149 Microfilms, request for ruling that distribution of, does not constitute pres pieatien. for purposes of Article 25... ave ‘ fe 306-308 bammenta on the above proposal Fe We aye -- 308, 309, 310, 311 Micropeza Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. 157 proposed validation of, under the plenary powers .. “ie ac Meee dDo advertisement of the above proposal .. aa ste oe o ef Pre SO proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in % Zoology with Musca corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767, as type species . : 159 comment on the above proposal ue i en oa aa mi 160 410 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature migratoritus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus migratorius) (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) (trivial name of type species of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758), proposed addition of, to the Cae List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Milax Gray, 1855 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Z 4 with Limax be age pea caar 1801, as type species . on milium Held, 1836 (as published in the binominal combination Pisidium milium) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the ia te List ee Specific Trivial Names in Zoology minimum Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Carychiuwm minimum) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Carychium Miiller (O. F.), 1774), proposed addition of, to the seine List of ics” Trivial Names in Zoology minuscula Binney, 1840 (as published in the binominal combination Helix minuscula) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the one List a Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 2% Miopentamerus Alexander (née Caldwell), 1936, proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology moitessierianum Paladilhe, 1866 (as published in the binominal combination Pisidium moitessierianum) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ‘ a Monoculus Linnaeus, 1758, ie ae suppression of, under the plenary powers oye is : BD sie ai gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, Anomia ae is is oe “a aie 331 laevis Sowerby, 1813, Pentamerus a aed ae ae ec a 94 scaber Pulteney, 1813, Pecten Sa # - an ae ide 236 sicula Bruguiére, 1792, Gioénia ae es AE ‘of a ne 36 striata Smith, 1817, Chama... ws Boe <= Bie ar signees ect 416 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to (continued) : Page triplicatus Pulteney, 1813, Pecten wee oc a ve a ag! 236 urogenitalis Baelz, 1883, Amoeba ma ae ts oe Ae: ae 281 vaginalis Blanchard, 1885, Amoeba .. ae nth & are tees 281 verus Buckman, 1922, Macrocephalites 5 4 a t Pema 7/7 Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to : Abida Turton, 1831 ne At Si ba ms aa & as 119 Acanthinula Beck, 1847 Ss se ene fen ek m! ae 119 Acanthocnema Becker, 1894... we ae as ae 2 ne 46 Acantholyda Costa, 1894 Ar ae a3 at 48 ue oe 46 Acheta Fabricius, 1775 .. i ae ae Ks ae ue dhe 117 Acrida Linnaeus, 1758 .. ts oe 4k Ane 32 Lie te 117 Acroloxus Beck, 1837 .. ate me See Bi AH a ay 120 Actaletes Giard, 1889 .. a ved ate a bs gi = 56 Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875 Be & as Pe es he Pon Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 a" ne <3 oe a Soe ae 712 Ancylus Miller, 1774... af a Pie oe. oe Talo: Angulaticeras Quenstedt, 1883 . Me me Pe ne a5 Se Z26 Aphidius Nees, 1818 .. Ae Bi Sir a3 de brs HY 19 Aplexa Fleming, 1820 .. the aK Sc ae oh he -» 120 Arianta Turton, 1831 .. sng es, = ne Lg fe aK 120 Arietites Waagen, 1869 .. ae he ee ee =: 58 -» 202 Arion Férussac, 1819 .. ie os ae Se ae eit ae 0 Arisphinctes Buckman, 1924 .. ae 3c a RR a oe) BES Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 .. oe ie we aE = ms -- - 219 Artheneis Spinola, 1837 . . fe nn 43 ba eo Ne 314, 317 Assiminea Fleming, 1828 5 ae ai be: ae at “tL E28 Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866 : i ne ne aie ai re hi) Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896 sie oe He “3 te Rte teh Azeca Fleming, 1828 ai ag Py he Re: ae oe 120 Balea Gray, 1824 ; oe ae a3 of Pte Be --, 20 Bigotites Nicolesco, 1918 . Bic as ae ee ae on Bourkelamberticeras Buckman, 1920 Hr Es er ee Se sik <% 230 Bourletiella Banks, 1899 me ene ae = a ok oh 56 Cadoceras Fischer, 1882 Z as Ai ae Ns us ae 220 Cadomites Munier-Chalmas, 1892 ba me oh * Bie ae 227 Capsus Fabricius, 1803 ae re Nee Ke at sp er 104 Carcinus Leach, 1814 .. . ah ae f= a = 5a 101 Cardinia Agassiz [1841] Ey ee =e oe Ki = te 63 Carychium Miller, 1774 =e A bats nat (ee er 22 -. SEZ Cecilioides Férussac, 1814 a uae iii Ls oF a Eh” 120 Cercopis Fabricius, 1775 oe se we a oe A -3. OZ Chironomus Meigen, 1803 a4 ae ae > ae A Pe 151 Chlorops Meigen, 1803 an ae a =a Se a .. | TS6r Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805... es a ne Ld Se .. a Cochlicella Férussac, 1821 ' .. 2 an ee in ar By 120 Conchidium Oehlert, 1887 SA ae ae ae es ‘fee ar 93 Coroniceras Hyatt, 1867 2; as ig ae or “2 = eee Crangon Fabricius, 1798 ek ff Pee gS af a 712 Cyphoderus Nicolet, 1842 Ste Se n = ae is e% 56 Discus Fitzinger, 1833 .. i Se ee ie oat af 7. ae Dorilas Meigen, 1800 .. fa = ue mn ae ss .. 347 Dreissena van Beneden, 1836 .. ue ne PP ate $e a8 oo TES Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 417 Official List of Generic Namee in Zoology, names proposed to be added to (continued) : Page Echioceras Bayle, 1878 .. ah is eit 5 cee BAT Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895. ae si ae Hote 2e0 Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883... oe Efe a aS ou 121 Eysarcoris Hahn, 1834 .. ar ae a ag a ae wish, 206 Fruticicola Held, 1837 .. ate ae Fe + ais ste cox WI Garantiana Mascke, 1907 of is: os te * oe eee Geomalacus Allman, 1843 fi RY. = oc es che = 121 Globicornis Latreille, 1829 ae oP aa 7 si a sist. LOG Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 Ars ae BA ae He rat re a st Harpoceras Waagen, 1869 a st ae ee Bx ke oF 193 Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867 oe fA aie ss tie aie esinaOd Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 Shs sig OF ae oh vs os 12] Hygromia Risso, 1826 .. ap fs oS ma ig be sie od Isotoma Bourlet, 1839 .. ore Ae ae nae Be ee fe 56 Isotomurus Borner, 1903 cy Be fe 4. ie ay Pe 56 Kosmoceras Waagen, 1869 Be ee a 23 nla £ Sees Laciniaria Hartmann, 1844 _—... a ae wo ep ve Sie 121 Lamberticeras Buckman, 1920 .. <: i 6 a ae sy 227 Lauria Gray, 1840 ig os Be Sh a se ite Se Al Ledra Fabricius, 1803 .. ae ae Ae os de ay aA hy Lepidocyrtus Bourlet, 1839 oes : its - Be - * 56 Leptopsylla Rothschild & Jordan, 1911 an ie ot it: hs 25 Leucophytia Winckworth, 1949. . ye ne ie ses sts a 121 Ligia Fabricius, 1798 .. Be ag bs a fe as wom LOL Liparoceras Hyatt, 1867 Me 46 He Bi sis on Pe P| LInudwigella Buckman, 1901 ae Le So a! iv - a 227 Lysiosquilla Dana, 1852 Sts oe te * ‘0 ae i 84 Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 .. ie Re ay as ae Ws 176 Magdalis Germar, 1817 .. fe as Ae aa ig ~ 5s 54 Micropeza Meigen, 1803 S43 a aa fe av et We 159 | Milax Gray, 1855 ae ae ae ae Bae Pic ae oe 121 Neelus Folsom, 1896 Re i mi Be ae a e ate ENG Nerinella Sharpe, 1850 .. ae 4 ve ot i eel DOO Normannites Munier-Chalmas, 1892 sy hs 28 as Br vege 223 Nysius Dallas, 1852 Be oes ae ae As af, he 314, 317 Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893 .. s i aN Ex ate i 87 Oecotraustes Waagen, 1869 abe 5c A 5A ae a Pons ee Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861 .. ae be 3 Rs Fi ae4 288 _ Onychiurus Gervais, 1841 a oc, a sie ~ ae 2g 57 Oppelia Waagen, 1869 .. aid As he Ar ae an we eaT Orchesella Templeton, 1835 ae ss ae a Se ep se 57 Orthosphinctes Schindewolf, 1925 vhs a5 os ae za ae 196 Otina Gray, 1847. ate a ie sy es 0 eles Lak Paronella Schott, 1893 By =f ae a ee #: : ac 57 Pentamerus Sowerby, 1813 Ss a - Ny oe Sf Bes 93 Perisphinctes Waagen, 1869... sh fc - se a Ree) «LOG Philia Meigen, 1800 oe Pa a x a ae + 154 Phlyseogrammoceras eee: ‘1901 .. ke +h AS Ae Sev e228 Phylloceras Suess, 1865 . 3 Js ae ee: bs ar ay a Wa, 199 Phytia Gray, 1821 ote Sh i ne tc 56 ai Pate ue ly Pictonia Bayle, 1878 .. ae hice Be As Mi eae ey Pipunculus Latreille, weer 1803] a Se Ba ea oe 140, 149 Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821 . aa a a af Ay ee eEr19 Planorbis Miller, 1774 .. oh we es se «% bee “4c 122 Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 .. sit a = ae a fad 17 Pleuroceras Hyatt, 1867 ap a oh i + 3 : Pomatias Studer, 1789 .. ap! 35 33 a vs . ae 122 418 = Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to (continued) : Poneramoeba Liithe, 1909 Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898 Pseudogrammoceras Buckman, 1901 _ .. Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923 Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867 .. ; Punctum Morse, 1864 .. Pupilla Fleming, 1828 .. Pyramidula Fitzinger, 1833 Quenstedtoceras Hyatt, 1877 Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 Retinella Fischer, 1877 .. Rhantus Dejean, 1833... Rhina Latreille, [1802-1803] Rhypodes Stal, 1868 Rumina Risso, 1826 a Scaphander Montfort, 1810 Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878 Scyllarides Gill, 1898 Segmentina Fleming, 1818 Siemiradzkia Hyatt, 1900 Sigaloceras Hyatt, 1900 Sminthurides Borner, 1900 Sminthurus Latreille, 1802 Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 Spirula Lamarck, 1799 .. Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869 Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 Subulina Beck, 1837 : Testacella Draparnaud, 1801 Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758 Theodoxus Montfort, 1810 Truncatellina Lowe, 1852 Tullbergia Lubbock, 1876 Tylos Meigen, 1800 obs Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1909 Vallonia Risso, 1826 Valvata Miller, 1774 Vertigo Miller, 1774 Vitrea Fitzinger, 1833 .. Viviparus Montfort, 1810 Zonitoides Lehmann, 1862 Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to: ' acicula Miiller, 1774, Buecinum aculeata Miiller, 1774, Helix .. acuminata Toff & Tiflov, 1946, “Rhadinopa ylta (Rectofrontia) (applied to species ** 68 °’) acuta Draparnaud, 1805, Pha yea acuta Rafinesque, 1831, Pleurocera aeneus Scopoli, 1763, Cimex .. aequinoctialis Lund, 1793, Scyllaris albinus Nicolet, 1842, Cythoderus albus Miiller, 1774, Planorbis Ks Ae P, ho ats algovianus Oppel, 1862, Ammonites... or ve oe fe Page 280 169 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 419 Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to (continued): Page alliaria Miller, 1822, Helix ats “s a is ue a: 126 alpestris Alder, 1838, Vertigo .. fe See a3 re: Sie “te 126 ambulans Linnaeus, 1758, Podura ot Sr at vi me oe 58 amnica Miiller, 1774, Tellina .. ee Si Es oe fe aie 123 anatinus, Linnaeus, 1758, Mytilus e a tr UP. i ag 128 anglicus Wood, 1828, Turbo .. neh ai - ais phe ee 126 angulata Lamarck, 1819, Gryphaea .. is a ws ee ay h0) angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, Ammonites oa tks ae a 206 angustior Jeffreys, 1830, Vertigo hs ae ak zk Ah oe 126 antarctica Lubbock, 1876, Tullbergia .. ys ae r am +. 58 antivertigo Draparnaud, 1801, Pupa .. a ste ae bh re 126 aquaticus Bourlet, 1842, Sminthurus .. ii re 2 2 ap: 58 arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758, Helix a ss an nt he SP 124 arcuata Lamarck, 1801, Gryphaea rye a a aie 0, arenaria Bouchard- Chantereaux, 1837, Succinea ay mye ee aa 126 asper Lamarck, 1819, Pecten .. At Wetowe a Bs er si Pe walla-b 1 aspersa Miiller, 1774, Helix ot x ad % ap “a te 126 ater Linnaeus, 1758, Cimex Ke % we a ey *, 104 ater Linnaeus, 1758, Limax a Fi +h ae “is at z8 124 auricularia Linnaeus, 1758, Helix Pi a we aS a4 is’ 126 aurigera Oppel, 1856, Ammonites bes Be a ae a ee Go aurita Linnaeus, 1758, Cicada .. ve ah We ae i; - 118 avarus Fabricius, 1798, Alpheus a a a me ne ae 72 avenae Haliday, 1834, Aphidius a "ac ve By Si a7 19 barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, Curculio .. Bh ae < Pe Aye 54 barbicornis Latreille, 1804, Rhina se as He as at af 54 barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, Curculio ne oh ie a * 54 baylet Salfeld, 1913, Pictonia .. aes ee 3h tas a 4 187 bidentata Montagu, 1808, Voluta Sc Bes be Ac 4 a3 124 bifrons Brugiére, 1789, Ammonites... ie ee Be a Shere ET) bilocularis Hisinger, 1799, Anomia .. a £5 sr Be ae 94 biplicatus Montagu, 1803, Turbo Se Sc ot Ais ai oo) 2G blattae Biitschli, 1878, Amoeba . . ; 33 > a as or 280 brongniarti Sowerby, 1817, Ammonites oe $3 ~ bas eee Ga bronni Spath, 1938, Liparoceras “ ue ay x ae ee 1! bucklandi Sowerby, 1816, Ammonites a * as ad oa 202 calloviensis Sowerby, 1815, Ammonites : af ae ms Tommie 4s: campestris Latreille, [1802-1803], Pipunculus 30 se rae 140, 149 cantiana Montagu, 1803, Helia: 4 : e% bud oe ee eG carinatus Miller, 1774, Planorbis ae aE Sec or 5G Oe 126 cincta Linnaeus, 1758, Podura at ats Bes a et: oe 58 cinctella Draparnaud, 1801, Helix 3c as Ae oe ae a be cinereoniger Wolf, 1803, Limaz. . AE a Lie ss ae ae 126 circumscriptus Johnston, 1828, Arion .. 3 ay oe a ae 126 clavicornis Fabricius, 1794, Lygaeus .. aA * a af scien EY coli Grassi, 1879, Amoeba “an ae es be om i, fe 281 complanata Linnaeus, 1758, Helix if ae et) sat ay er LaG concavus Sowerby, 1915, Ammonites .. Se ae bf “oe a 228 conoidea Draparnaud, 1801, Helia sé ae Sue Ge ve .. 124 contorta Linnaeus, 1758, Helix . . Ss a RA oe 5 ri 126 cornea Linnaeus, 1758, Helix .. a 7 a a os 126 cornea Linnaeus, 1758, Tellina ste ake By oy “fd x 128 corrigiolata Linnaeus, 1767, Musca .. Be a - 157, 159 costata Miller, 1774, Helix ae 3 e: eA wd of ig 126 cotovui Simionescu, 1907, Perisphinctes - ts re Se se 215 crangon Linnaeus, 1758, Cancer cf oe ts a a 72 crassus Philipsson, 1788, Unio un oe x “fe ti 2 128 420 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature - Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to (continued): Page crista Linnaeus, 1758, Nautilus 3 oe ae ae ate ve 126 cristata Miller, 1774, Valvata .. Ste i wid ps ait as 124 crystallina Miller, 1774, Helix ahs ing sls a Ws ie 126 cuneiforme Hyatt, 1867, Arnioceras .. ce ‘ire ‘ah aid ati 219 curvicollis Bourlet, 1839, Lepidocyrtus a te Xs zie ite 58 cygneus Linnaeus, 1758, Mytilus A ae a oe ki ag 128 cylindraceus da Costa, 1778, Turbo .. = sat 126 histolytica Schaudinn, 1903, Entamoeba ve Ss Sara. oo aE hortensis Miller, 1774, Helix .. ; eas <- ae its oe 126 hortensis Férussac, 1819, Arion ae ae a ste ot Seg 126 hortensis Fitch, 1863, Sminthurue we ots Bg a ak ois (aos humphriesianus Sowerby, 1825, Ammonites .. bie ee ei os 229 hypnorum Linnaeus, 1758, Bulla it Ft cf ue . ie incarnata Miller, 1774, Helix .. ais = ave it as ae 126 inornata Dana, 1852, Lysiosquilla he ds aft oe ate .* 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 421 Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, names proposed to be added to (continued): Page intermedius Norman, 1852, Arion ee a) 3 As 23 Hi 126 involuta Spath, 1935, Rasenia .. re Bas sh ie ye sue 187 knighti Sowerby, 1813, Pentamerus .. sig as Rn? a ee 94 kridion Hehl in Zieten, [1830], Ammonites .. ts + as <3 peae lactea Miller, 1774, Helix ae : We ne a S ala 126 lacunatus Buckman, 1844, Ammonites: ite oe Bye st aie 229 lacustris Linnaeus, 1758, Patella i a si ia ae ad 124 lacustris Miller, 1774, Tellina .. ave Ag an ry ad a 128 laevis Alder, 1838, Planorbis .. ap ie in ns Sts ae 126 lamberti Sowerby, 1819, Ammonites .. 26 Be ae a ce. 229 lamellata Jeffreys, 1830, Helix Re Re ia - i ss 126 laminatus Montagu, 1803, Turbo + 2% sbi Ke Ms we ZB lapicida Linnaeus, 1758, Helix es ae m sie ae avs 126 leachi Sowerby, 1819, Ammonites sg es We sts Ys a 229 leachi Sheppard, 1823, Turbo .. of as 4. bs - ern a6 lens Férussac, 1821, Helix Ae ae \e oe a; Sa Se 126 lignaria Linnaeus, 1758, Bulla : Are is ay in ~ 36 lilljeborgi Westerlund, 1871, Pepa (Vertigo) éd iM of pid = 127 linearis Lowe, 1852, Pupa (Truncatellina) .. he ye ” ae 124 lineatus Draparnaud, 1801, Bulimus .. na He a My Me 124 listert Sowerby, 1817, Unio ae ae aKa oh ne a ws 63 littoralis Cuvier, 1797, Unio .. a by: aM iP ae i 128 lubrica Miller, 1774, Helix ate hs 3, ¥ Ae se 127 maceocephalus Schlotheim, 1813, Ammonites . . aut a Pas Sr pyle le hel maculosus Allman, 1843, Geomalacus .. ove a +; ud as 124 maenas Linnaeus, 1758, Cancer Vs tn jes ied bt ae 101 major Férussac, 1807, Helicolimax HPs ae sa in ete sa 127 marginata Michaud, 1831, Paludina .. Bt Pt aM 4 Be 127 maximus Linnaeus, 1758, Limax “2 Aya sie aie ae oe 127 migratorius Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus .. os 5 a we = 118 milium Held, 1836, Pistdium ns ee a a Ss i 128 minimum Miller, 1774, Carychium .. ae fe ue ae sh 124 ‘minuscula Binney, 1840, Helix tee ai Bi ia ote Per epren i217] moitessierianum Paladilhe, 1866, Pisidium .. et. Bao — ae 128 moulinsiana Dupuy, 1849, Pupa He ae Si A oe als 127 murinus Foldom, 1896, Neelus i a ae ~~ e be 58 muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, Turbo ie Be a 5, B% ae 125 mutabilis Sowerby, 1823, Ammonites .. e a +e ae ae 189 myosotis Draparnaud, 1801, Auricula .. ts ate v3 i SS ,yalgdZo naticina Menke, 1845, Valvata ne Ae se Be ee oi 127 neglecta Draparnaud, 1805, Helix sis oe ay ae eve ~ 127 nemoralis Linnaeus, 1758, Helix 4F ae ay A at) az 127 neptuni Giard, 1889, Actaletes .. ae oka os a ats 58 nigrimana Zetterstedt, 1846, Cordylura He ed at bie a 46 nigripes Fabricius, 1792, Dermestes .. ale = i aa S, 166 nitida Miller, 1774, Helix : Mt: ay x ays ee - 124 nitidula Draparnaud, 1805, Helix... th aR ¥e Me eunnaled nitidum Jenyns, 1832, Pisidium oe as ite 3 - sere 28 nitidus Miller, 1774, Planorbis ee ret a as Bie ae 125 obliquata Sowerby, 1815, Gryphaea .. ie At 26 bridcitetsn too oblonga Draparnaud, 1801, Succinea .. ae hs ais re oped oblongus Sowerby, 1839, Pentamerus .. ts a ae . a0 ia ee teat al Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature palustre Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Buceinum palustre) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the fi ais List a Specific Trivial Names in Zoology palustris Miller, 1776 (as published in the binominal combination Podura palustris) (Class Insecta, Order Collembola) (trivial name of type species of Isotomurus Borner, 1903), proposed addition of, to the clei List v Speen id Trivial Names in Zoology patulum Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Cyclostoma patulum) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ee List of Sek et Trivial Names in Zoology parallelus Say, 1821 (as published in the binominal combination Planorbis parallelus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Seas List ot Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Paronella Schott, 1893 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in AS with Paronella einai Schétt, 1893, as type species parvula Férussac, 1807 (as published in the binominal combination Clausilia parvula) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ee List is Specific aad Names in Zoology Pelagus Montfort, 1808 (Class Cephalopoda, Order gai aa eeroe _ Suppression of, under the plenary powers advertisement of the above proposal proposed addition of, to the ipsam) Index a ia al and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology comment on the above proposal pellucida Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix pellucida) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the eSieiat List ws Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Pentamerus Sowerby (J.), 1813 (Class Brachiopoda), proposed validation of, under the plenary powers, for use in its accustomed sense advertisement of the above proposal proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of Pentamerus oblongus Sowerby (J. de C.) to be the type species of. . : : 46 an proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology comments on the above proposal .. aK 425 Page 127 58 127 127 57 127 198 162 198 337 127 9-94 66 93 93 . 95-96 426 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page peregrum Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Buccinum peregrum) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the en uper: List a Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. 127 Perisphinctes Waagen, 1869 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation under the plenary powers, of Ammonites variocostatus Buckland, 1836, to be the type species of .. of x Hi 191-193 advertisement of the above proposal .. oF a fie -. 162 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. 193 perversus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Turbo perversus) (Class Gastropoda) (oldest available name for type species of Balea Gray, 1824), proposed addition of, to the clemaan List g eee Trivial Names in Zoology ore 124 petri Nicolesco, 1917 (as published in the binominal combination Bigotella petri), (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), (trivial name of type species of Bigotites Nicolesco, 1918), proposed addition of, to the digi List ae Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. 229 ** Petrificata ’’, names published for, in Volume 3 of Linnaeus, 1768, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) and certain later editions of that work, ied soiaten ede: of, under the plenary powers .. oe = 88 advertisement of the above proposal .. 3 os se ae sy oo petronella Pfeiffer, 1853 (as published in the binominal combination Helix petronella) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the sop int List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. 127 Philia Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in en with Paes ver ee 1758, as type species... 154 comments on the above proposal oe He nid we == 155, 348 Phlyseogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammo- noidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in © Zoology with Ammonites dispansus Lycett, 1860, as type species .. 228 Phylloceras Suess, 1865 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed .addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Petey with Ames heterophyllus Sowerby Mm h 1820, as type species... ss ee Phytia Gray, 1821 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in iia with Voluta denticulata samen 1803, as type species a 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ; 427 Page Pictonia Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation, under the plenary ‘habeas of Pictonia coor Salfeld, 1913, to be the type species of .. a 178-187 advertisement of the above proposal .. Kip Be a die -», AGI proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. 187 pinguicola Verrill, 1870 (as published in the binominal combination Sclero- stoma pinguicola), (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida) (subjective synonym of trivial name of type species of Stephanurus Diesing, 1839), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology if decision taken not to preserve dentatus Diesing, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Stephanurus dentatus) under the plenary powers .. 289 Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803], (Class Insecta, Order on “eas validation of, under the plenary powers “tc 140, 149 advertisement of the above proposal .. ae oe = ad Se SL proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803], as type species .. 140, 149 comments on the above proposal... ia .. 141-149, 346-347, 348 proposed addition of, to the sage Index f Nise and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Ae 347 piscinalis Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Nerita piscinalis) (Class Gastropoda), age addition of, to the a List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 127 Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in iifides with Tellina amnica Miller ae diy Si 4774, as type species... 119 Planites de Haan, 1825 (Class Cephalopoda, Order gatenes: tame suppression of, under the plenary powers... 194-197 advertisement of the above proposal .. 43 ss oF ay -- 162 proposed addition of, to the cll Index i met and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... 196 _ planorbis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Helix planorbis) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Planorbis Miller (O. F.), 1774), proposed addition of, to the as List sf Mipets Trivial Names in Zoology oe 124 Planorbis Miller (O. F.), 1774 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in oe with Helix eaereati tN 1758, as type species... 122 428 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature planorbis Sowerby (J. de C.), 1824 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites planorbis), (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), (trivial name of type species of Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : tc Planulites Lamarck, 1801 (Class Cephalopoda, Order sree aps eye suppression of, under the plenary powers advertisement of the above proposal proposed addition of, to the aaa Index of a and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology comment on the above proposal Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Class Gastropoda, Order Mesogastropoda), Report on init of whether piPeey baad should be used to nery bon species of . - proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831, to be the type species of .. sie ; advertisement of above proposal proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology comment on the above proposal Pleuroceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Gace Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in shah ahia with Ammonites spinatus Bruguiere, 1789, as type species plicata Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Pupa plicata) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Laciniaria Hartmann, 1844), ve addition of, to the ines List = corn Trivial Names in Zoology. . : plumosa Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Tipula plumosa) (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), (trivial name of type species of Chironomus Meigen, 1803), proposed addition of, to the Reigsat List a Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : polygyratus Reinecke, 1818 (as published in the binominal combination Nautilus polygryatus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), Bape 19 direction, under the plenary powers, of application of advertisement of the above proposal proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology polymorphus Pallas, 1771 (as published in the binominal combination Mytulus (ex err. pro Mytilus) (polymorphus) (Class Pelecypoda) (trivial name of type species of Dreissena van Beneden, 1835), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ae 228 124 151 4-197 162 196 123 ———————— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature pomatia Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Helix pomatia) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ae List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ‘ Pomatias Studer, 1789 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in pepe ts with Nerita noo Miiller ee B. ‘) 1774, as type species Poneramoeba Liihe, 1909 (Class Rhizopoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Genéric Names in a. with Hntamoeba caret i Schaudinn, 1903, as type species . princeps Buckman, 1923 (as published in the binominal combination Schlo- theimia princeps) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. rar ' Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of Procerites schloenbachi 429 Page 127 122 280 206 de Grossouvre, 1907, to be the type species of He uO ae 167-169 \ advertisement of the above proposal .. proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ** Prodromo ”’ of 8. A. Renier, 1804, see Renier (S. A.), 1804. “ Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi”’ of 8. A. Renier, 1804, see Renier (S. A.), » 1804, Pseudibacus Guérin-Ménéville, 1855 (Class ieee: Order oes: proposed suppression of, under the plenary powers . proposed addition of, to the Cipiol Ei Index a Hai and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Pseudogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am- monoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Ammonites struckmanni Denckmann, 1887, as type species pseudomutabilis de Loriol, 1874, Ammonites (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of, under the Bee Lait to be the type species of Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896 : proposed addition of, to the ae List if oe Trivial Names in Zoology . Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Am- monoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Perisphinctes rotundatus Roemer (J.), 1911, as type species 161 169 82 82 228 189 189 228 430 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), propdsed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in hota with Ammonites planorbis Sowerby (J. de C.), 1824, as type species .. pulchella Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix pulchella) (Class Gastropoda) (oldest available name for type species of Vallonia Risso, 1826), eames addition of, to the aa List 2 re Trivial Names in Zoology : pulchellum Jenyns, 1832 (as published in the binominal combination Pisidium pulchellum) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the i List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology pumila Pfeiffer, 1828 (as published in the binominal combination Clausilia pumila) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the einai List a Specific Trivial Names in Zoology pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778, Musca (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed designation of, under the oar) er to be the wee neers of ners Meigen, 1803 re proposed addition of, to the a, List a ees Trivial Names in Zoology . Punctum Morse, 1864 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eit with Helix minutissima — 1841, as type species . ee ° Pupilla Fleming, 1828 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in jams with aren tie cass se 1801, as type species pura Alder, 1830 (as published in the binominal combination Helix pura) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the se cee List = pas Trivial Names in Zoology af pusilla Miller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Vertigo pusilla) (Class Gastropoda) (trivial name of type species of Vertigo Miiller (O. F.), 1774), a eat addition of, to the suet List of ree: Trivial Names in Zoology : putris Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Helix putris) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the OORT List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ~~ Z pygmaea Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Helix pygmaea) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the et List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology aM it Page 228 125 128 127 136 138 122 122 127 124 127 127 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature pygmaea Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Pupa pygmaea) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the genie cial List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology pyramidata Draparnaud, 1805 (as published in the binominal combination Helix pyramidata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the eis icial List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology a ; Pyramidula Fitzinger, 1833 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in aris with Helix Miata et iota 1801, as type species pyrenaica Férussac, 1821 (as published in the binominal combination Helicolomax pyrenaica) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology quadratus Fabricius, 1787 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer quadratus) (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), request for views of specialists regarding possible use of eed Bee to oe as trivial name of Sand Crab 5 : Sp igs advertisement of the above enquiry quadridens Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix quadridens) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ae List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology , Quenstedioceras Hyatt, 1877 (Class Ce halopoda, Order “ps emaial y paalop proposed rejection of spelling as, in favour of Quenstedtoceras proposed addition of, to the se isicaal Index a Pat and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ae Quenstedticeras Teisseyre, 1889 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Binidatutoa’: proposed addition of, to the aint tt Index a iii and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; Quenstedtoceras Hyatt, 1877 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed declaration that spelling as, to be accepted and not Quenstedioceras proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in sri ge with Ammonites leachi Sowerby (J.), 1815, as type species radigueli Bourguignat, 1869 (as published in the binominal combination Lartetia radigueli) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the wb Soh List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ~% 431 Page 127 127 122 127 105 98 127 230 230 230 230 228 127 432 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Rantus Dejean, 1833 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) proposed emendation of, under Article 19, to Rhantus, and proposed ee of prcenin e pulverosus Stephens, 1828, as type species of : . 40-45 raricostatus Zieten [1831] (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites raricostatus), (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), (trivial name of type species of Echioceras Bayle, 1878), rg addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : 229 Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), he rae designation, under the plenary powers, of Rasenia involuta leisiis . 8.) Spath, 1935, to be the type species of a a Dic 178-187 advertisement of the above proposal .. zs ae at Ae sit) UOT proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. 187 Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique. Article 25, request for ruling that distribution of microfilms does not constitute ‘‘ publication ” for purposes of . : or 306-311 religiosus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Gryllus religiosus) (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) (trivial name of type species of Mantis Linnaeus, 1767), proposed addition of, to the eens List 2 Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ste : 118 Renier (S. A.), “‘Prodromo” and “ Prospetto della Classe dei Vermi” request for declaration that not ‘‘ published ” within meaning of Article 25 299-300 comment on the above proposal ie si as ae te Hone mc reticulatus Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination imax reticulatus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the nee List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. se 127 Retinella Fischer, 1877 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in dia with Helix olivetorum Gmelin, 1791, as type species... 122 Rhantus (emend. of Rantus) Dejean, 1833 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in a: with Colymbetes pulverosus Stephens, 1828, as type species se 45 Rhina Schaeffer, 1760 (Class Pisces), proposed addition of, to the cies Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .-. * 54 Rhina Wahlbaum, 1792 (Class Pisces), proposed addition of, to the aon Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .-. . 54 : : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Rhina Latreille, [1802-1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed validation of, under the plenary powers, for use in its accustomed sense .. advertisement of the above proposal .. proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775 to be the type species of .. ‘< a < : Proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed addition of, to’ the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. pe sta “et Bf “i er ie ne =i Rhypodes Stal, 1868 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Nysius zealandicus Dallas, 1852, as type species ws a Ae fa aie a Riley, Norman Denbigh, elected to be a Member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ae 3 ne iE rivicola Lamarck, 1818 (as published in the binominal combination Cyclas rivicola) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology so Re at a we ak Rode, Paul, death of, reported ' rolphi Turton, 1831 (as published in the binominal combination Clausilia rolphi) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology é A =e fe ye Ac rotundata Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Helix rotundata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ‘i cr ae i, ms ts rotundatus Roemer (J.), 1911 (as published in the binominal combination Perisphinctes rotundatus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : ruderata Férussac, 1821 (as published in the binominal combination Helix (Helicella) ruderata) (Class Gastropoda) (trivial name of type species of Discus Fitzinger, 1833), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ok ae ok ag in ot Ae Rumina Risso, 1826 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Helix decollata Linnaeus, 1758, as type species re a x me 7 4 oe a 433 Page 47-55 34 53 53 54 317 128 127 127 229 124 122 434 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature runtoniana Sandberger, 1880 (as published in the binominal combination Nematurella runtoniana) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology rupestris Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Helix rupestris) (Class Gastropoda) (trivial name of type species of Pyramidula Fitzinger, 1833), proposed addition of, to the ee List 2 Specific Trivial Names in Zoology oe Sand Crab, request for views of i aga regarding aeceage use of her powers to vary trivial name of advertisement of the above enquiry sanguinolenta Scopoli, 1763 (as published in the binominal combination Cicada sanguinolenta) (trivial name of type species of Cercopis Fabricius, 1775), a paging! addition of, to the bat List ab of arte Trivial Names in Zoology saurita Linnaeus, 1766 (as published in the binominal combination Coluber saurita) (Class Reptilia), proposed addition of, to the ge ete List a ee Trivial Names in Zoology 3 scaber Pulteney, 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten scaber) (Class Poem: Le ea al pana of, under the Ree uc” powers proposed addition of, to the a cael Index a skis and Invalid Pishing: Trivial Names in Zoology , Scamnoceras Lange, 1924 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the oe aa Index a rage and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Scaphander Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda, Order Toe proposed validation of, under the plenary powers advertisement of the above proposal .. comment on the above proposal proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in oie with Bulla lignaria Linnaeus, 1758, as type species schloenbachi de Grossouvre, 1907, Procerites (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of, under the Smee mares to be the type species of Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898 Je proposed addition of, to the beset List a ee Trivial Names in Zoology . Page 127 124 105 98 302 67 236 236 206 . 35-36 34 334 36 169 169 ——————— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammoniodea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in a with Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, as type species . scipionianus d’Orbigny, 1844 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites scipionianus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology scutulum Sowerby, 1821 (as published in the binominal combination Testacellus scutulum) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : 5 Scyllarides Gill, 1898 (Class Crustacea, Order caren eee validation of, under the plenary powers advertisement of the above proposal .. proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in a with Scyllarus aequinoctialis Lund, 1793, as type species comments on the above proposal Scyllaridia Bell, 1857 (Class a cag Order neers), La ae pee pression of, under the plenary powers. ‘proposed addition of, to the rie oa Index a anaaeis and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology scyllarus Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Cancer scyllarus) (trivial name of type species of Odontodactylus Bigelow, 1893) (Class Crustacea, Order Stomatopoda), proposed addition of, to the caictat List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology secale Draparnaud, 1801 (as published in the binominal combination Pupa secale) (Class Gastropoda), (trivial name of type species of Ab¢da Turton, 1831), proposed addition of, to the ORs List of Peet Trivial Names in Zoology Segmentina Fleming, 1818 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ened with Nautilus lacustris Poe 1786, as type species segnis Schénherr, 1811 (as published in the binominal combination Pulex segnis) (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera) (oldest available name for type species of Leptopsylla Rothschild & Jordan, 1911), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : Seguenziceras Levi, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Hails oar ise ai j : 208-210 for ruling regarding nomenclatorial status of . 229 127 . 81-82 66 82 344 82 82 87 124 122 25 436 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature septemspiralis Razoumowsky, 1789 (as published in the binominal combina- tion Helix septemspiralis (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ~ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology sicula Bruguiére, 1792 (as published in the binominal combination Gioénia sicula (Class Gastropoda, Order Tectibranchiata), gesiae de agt a of, under the plenary powers proposed addition of, to the Official Index a aoe and Invalid sia i Trivial Names in Zoology : _ Siemiradzkia Hyatt, 1900 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), pro- posed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in feaasies with Ammonites aurigerus Oppel, 1856, as type species Sigaloceras Hyatt, 1900 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eae with Ammonites calloviensis Sowerby (J.), 1815, as type species similis Bruguiére, 1792 (as published in the binominal combination Bulimus similis) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the EN List uy: Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Sinemuria de Christol, 1841 (Class Ee aa Eph eye sie sg of, under the plenary powers proposed addition of, to the Seas Index sa os and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Coluber sirtalis) (Class Reptilia), proposed determination, under the oe tah ge of species to which trivial name applicable advertisement of the above proposal . proposed addition of, to the "ia List av none Trivial Names in Zoology . Page 127 36 36 169 228 127 63 63 67-68 66 67 comments on the above proposal Se ws at: ae ee 351-352 Sminthurides Bérner, 1900 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in erties with Smin- thurus aquaticus Bourlet, 1842, as type species Sminthurus (emend. of Smynthurus) Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Podura viridis Linnaeus, 1758, as type species Snapping Shrimps, generic name for, see Alpheus Fabricius, 1798. 57 57 Vee —_- i’ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 437 Page solida Normand, 1844 (as published in the binominal combination Cyclas solida) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Kei List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology aig 128 sowerbyt Férussac, 1823 (as published in the binominal combination Limazx sowerbyt) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the sane List A Specific Trivial Names in Zoology e. 127 Sphaeroceras Hope, 1840 (Class Insecta, Order erento) ee sup- pression of, under the plenary powers. . ; 164-165 advertisement of the above proposal .. a se me se Ba ig proposed addition of, to the on Index 2 Sage and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology aE 165 comment on the above proposal Ae rt ae ay ae 165-166 Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 (Class Cephalopoda, Order pcanunn. pro- posed validation of, under the plenary powers mae : 164-165 advertisement of the above proposal .. oe ces “fe Sc Ses Lal proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in eatin, with Ammonites brongniarti Sowerby, 1817, as type species .. 165 ‘ comment on the above proposal 5 woe “0 540 ate 165-166 spinatus Bruguiére, 1789 (as published in the binominal combination Am- monites spinatus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Plewroceras Hyatt, 1867), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. 229 spinosus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1826, Ammonites (Class Cephalopada, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of, under the DEY: Tes to be the type species of Kosmoceras Waagen, 1869 S¢ 192 proposed addition of, to the eee: List x sae Trivial Names in Zoology . “3 193 spirula Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Nautilus spirula) (Class Cephalopoda) (trivial hame of type species of Spirula Lamarck, 1799), proposed addition of, to the eee List zi Spee i Trivial Names in Zoology os 298 Spirula Lamarck, 1799 (Class Cephalopoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in spat coe with Nautilus saa me 1758, as type species... 298 Spirulaea Agassiz (L.), 1845 (Class Cephalopoda), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 2s) e298 438 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Spirulea Peron & Leseur, 1807 (and Oken, 1815) (Class Cephalopoda), pro- posed addition of, to the dati Index of ee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binominal combination Helix stagnalis) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the pecans List es Specific Trivial Names in Zoology are stellaris Sowerby (J.), 1815 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites stellaris) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology z Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Ammonites humphriesianus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1825, as type species Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 (Class Nematoda, Order paige pede of Page 298 127 229 228 correct name for type species of ae 282-293 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in wipes 3 with Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, as type species Stepheoceras Buckman (S.), 1898 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the spina Index if ees and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Storthodon Zittel, 1881 (Class Lamellibranchiata) proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology striata Miiller, 1774 (as published in the binominal combination Heliz striata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the of oe List 5 i Rei Trivial Names in Zoology striata Smith, 1817 (as published in the binominal combination Chama striata) (Class Bes ae alate of, under the Lee powers proposed addition of, to the Official Index a cago and Invalid oe Trivial Names in Zoology .. striolata Pfeiffer, 1828 (as published in the binominal combination Helix striolata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Py ate List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology oe — struckmanni Denckmann, 1887 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites struckmanni) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Pseudogrammoceras Buckman (S.), 1901), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ae 287 230 64 127 235 235 127 229 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature subfuscus Draparnaud, 1805 (as published in the binominal combination TAmax subfuscus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the © Offices cial List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology sublaevis Sowerby (J.), 1814 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites sublaevis) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Cadoceras Fischer, 1882), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823 (as published in the binominal combina- tion Ammonites subradiatus) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Oppelia Waagen, 1869), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. subrufescens Miller, 1822 (as published in the binominal combination Helix subrufescens) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Bere List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology substriata Jeffreys, 1833 (as published in the binominal combination Alaea substriata) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the cae List cs Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 55 subtruncatum Malm, 1855 (as published in the binominal combination Pisidium subtruncatum) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the _ Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology Subulina Beck, 1837 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ne with Bulimus octonus ee isa 1789, as type species subvirescens Bellamy, 1839 (as published in the binominal combination Helia: subvirescens) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ect List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology supinum Schmidt, 1850 (as published in the binominal combination Pisidium supinum) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Cae List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology of suturalis MacLeay, 1825 (as published in the binominal combination Colym- betes suturalis) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (oldest available name for type species of Rhantus Dejean, 1833), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. Tendipes Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order ee? Deyo sr acts of, under the plenary powers advertisement of the above proposal . proposed addition of, to the ini wes Index / paren and Invalid Generic - Names in Zoology ze 439 Page 229 229 127 128 122 128 151 comments on the above proposal ae > oh as ss 152, 348 L 440 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page tenellus Miiller, 1774 (as published in the bmominal combination Limax tenellus) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the ae hua List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 127 tenuilineatum Stelfox, 1918 (as published in the binominal combination Pisidium tenuilineatum) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ‘ we St 128 Testacella Cuvier, 1800 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 123 Testacella Draparnaud, 1801 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ested with Testacella haliotidea Draparnaud, 1801, as type species 122 Testacella Lamarck, 1801 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 123 Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 117 Tetigonia Fourcroy, 1785 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 117 Tetigonia Blanchard, 1852 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed addition of, to the mea Index Hig epee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 117 Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) proposed validation of, under the Pere Proper as of subgeneric status as from Linnaeus, 1758 .. ; 5H ays cfs .. 106-109, 116 advertisement of the above proposal .. 98 proposed designation, under the plenary powers, of Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of .. 56 he ie eG proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 117 comments on the above proposal se one ve ec oe 109-118 Tettigonia Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) proposed. . addition of, to the i ere Index #9 Raper’ and Invalid Generic Names in kf Zoology 117 Thalassides Berger, 1833 (Class Sime eat re pone suppression of, under the plenary powers .. : ie so a 63 proposed addition of, to the si Index - re a and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 63 — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 441 Page Thalassites Quenstedt, 1843, proposed addition of, to the har Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology NM 64 Thamnophilus Schoenherr, 1823 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), pr oposed addition of, to the oe Index as Eee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology .. es 54 Theodoxus Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in athe with Theodoxus lutetianus Mont- fort, 1810, as type species Ba ; : Be a pik E22 thymi Wolff, 1804, Lygaeus (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), proposed designation of, under the PP ePae ag to be the Mgrs prime of arse Dallas, 1852 a 313-317 proposed addition of, to the laa List g Rie i Trivial Names in Zoology .. 317 Titania Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order ie aate s eas se ata of under the plenary powers .. 136 advertisement of the above proposal .. a ae tr aes we. dO proposed addition of, to the i esti Index ? sae and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ar. 138 comments on the above proposal or Ser v ES .. 138, 139, 348 tiziani Oppel, 1863 (as published in the binominal combination Ammonites tiziant) (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (trivial name of type species of Orthosphinctes Schindewolf, 1925), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. 196 Toxosphinctes Buckman, 1923 (Class Cephalopoda, Order ee mae proposed suppression of, under the plenary powers . . ; 215 advertisement of the above proposal . . ae oe st aS -. 162 proposed addition of, to the ee Index si ae and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology sc 215 transbaikalica Ioff & Tiflov, 1946 (as published in the trinominal combina- tion Rhadinopsylla (Ralipsylla) li transbaikalica) (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera), proposed addition of, to the ne apaedn List ut pean. Trivial Names in Zoology n€ 297 transversa Say, 1829 (as published in the binominal combination Cyclas transversa) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the ising List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology .. : 128 442 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Tricla Philipsson, 1788 (Class Gastropoda, Order pacebaanpieio: pee isch suppression of, under the plenary powers 36 proposed addition of, to the Sibi: Index ‘a ee and Invalid Names — in Zoology 36 Trimurus Caldwell, 1934, proposed addition of, to the ea te Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 94 triplicatus Pulteney, 1813 (as published in the binominal combination Pecten triplicatus) (Class bescineuises eed de: Sage of, under the Poi powers 236 proposed addition of, to the ee Index a cain and Invalid Seite Trivial Names in Zoology 236 Truncatellina Lowe, 1852 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in rh with his bani sic linearis Lowe, 1852, as type species 122 truncatulum Miller, 1774 (as published in ithe binominal combination Buccinum truncatulum) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology 3 127 Trust, International, for Zoological Nomenclature: Balance Sheets at 3lst December 1949 and 3lst December 1950 and Income and Expenditure Accounts for the Years 1949 and 1950... es FNC .. 357-361, 367-371 reports of the Committee of Management for the years 1949 and 1950 353-356, 362-366 Tullbergia Lubbock, 1876 (Class Insecta, Order Collembola), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in midis with Tull- bergia antarctica Lubbock, 1876, as type species tumidus Philipsson, 1788 (as published in the binominal combination Unio tumidus) (Class Pelecypoda), proposed addition of, to the Packie List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : turritus Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), proposed designation of, under the curred pow to be the NaEP sagen te of Acrida Linnaeus, 1758 : proposed addition of, to the mtd List a ppeeae Trivial Names in Zoology . Turton (W.), 1806, A general System of Nature, Vol. 7, see “‘ Petrifica’ 57 128 116 -118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 445 Page Tylos Meigen, 1800 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ee with Musca ete Linnaeus, 1767, as type species ; 157 proposed suppression of, under the plenary powers . . oF aa ae 159 advertisement of the above proposal .. ye a2 ce * SISO proposed addition of, to the ea Index of vette and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology es 159 comments on the above proposals ee <3 B. a 160, 347, 348 Tyrrheneis Kirkaldy, 1909 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) as te addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology we 317 ulvae Pennant, 1777 (as published in the binominal combination Turbo ulvae) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the fee List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology aie : 127 umbrosa Pfeiffer, 1828 (as published in the binominal combination Helix umbrosa) (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Pe uaesad List id Specific Trivial Names in Zoology be 127 ~ urogenitalis Baelz, 1883 (as published in the binominal combination Amoeba urogenitalis) _— on 5 ae ane a fee aad of, under the ened powers... 279 proposed addition of, to the cep Teale = soto and Invalid gare Trivial Names in Zoology .. 281 vaginalis Blanchard, 1885 (as published in the binominal combination Amoeba vaginalis) eat ry sams Bet