peemet 4 we O° tees “ -- « * > i ebe om esese . n : treet Beare “ . ; : 4 Peertetsd 7 4 7 : : ' rtrvete; af oe ~/ f THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 13 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 on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1957—1958 (All rights reserved) = 1 oe sate wet HY } Pe PSG he u pK OF i Pay, Gre as es ty. AT shang WP - oak | % Se ee acy, = ey ‘ / a) 3 , Py ~\ eae oe 5 £5 " Ill INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE PUBLICATION OF THE PRESENT VOLUME A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President: Professor James Chester BraptEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio po AMaRAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemmune (London, England) (27th July 1948) 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) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CaBrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemmuine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaxt (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritzy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JaczEwsxki (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Herine (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitét zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio po Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BrapLEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) B. The Members of the Commission (continued) Professor Béla Hanx6é (Mezégazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stout (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SytvesTeR-BRaDLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Horrauts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Mrtter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doe. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Narodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KiHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BopENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘‘ G. Doria ’’, Genoa, Italy) (16th December 1954) C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis HEmMine, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary : Mrs. M. F. W. HEmMMING Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Grirrin, A.L.A. Consulting Classical Advisor: Professor the Rev. L. W. GRENSTED, M.A., D.D. “ Official Lists’ Section: Miss D. N. Noakss, B.Sc. ** Régles’ Section: Mrs. A. F. Witson, M.A. Mrs. J. H. NEwMan Mrs. B. LESTER Secretariat Mrs. C. SLATER Miss D. FIDLER Mrs. J. FARBROTHER Indexer : Miss M. Cosu, M.A. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Chairman : The Right Hon. Walter Extiorr, C.H., M.C., F.R.S., M.P. Managing Director and Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemuine, C.M.G., C.B.E. Publications Officer : Mrs. C. RosNER 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, 8.W.7. FOREWORD The present is the third complete volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature devoted to the publication of applications relating to individual nomenclatorial problems to be published since the close of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. Publication began in January 1957, within two months of the issue of the last corresponding Part (Part 11) of the preceding volume. Publication proceeded steadily through the year and by 30th December the present volume was complete, except for the concluding Index Part (Part 12). In addition to the scientific matter referred to above, the present volume contains the Report and Accounts of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the year 1956. As on previous occasions, this Report was prepared in such a way as to serve the dual purpose of describing the work performed by the Trust during the year under review and of providing for that year the Progress Report on the work of the Office of the Commission in the series which at Paris in 1948 it was arranged should be furnished from time to time by the Secretary to the Commission. 2. Just before the close of the year the Commission suffered a serious loss through the death (on 14th December, 1957) of Professor Teiso Esaki who for the preceding twenty-two years had served with great distinction as the Japanese Member of the International Commission. An Obituary Notice will be found on pages 323 to 324. 3. The present volume contains 435 pages (T.P.-X XV, i-xxviii, 1-382 and three plates) and comprises 133 papers of which 55 are original applications submitted to the International Commission for decision and 78 are comments by specialists on applications submitted by other authors. Of these 78 comments, 43 relate to applications in the present volume and 35 relate to applications in Volume 12 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 4. Of the 55 original applications referred to above, one deals simultaneously with proposals relating to taxa belonging to two Classes in the Animal Kingdom and two deal simultaneously with the status of zoological books and with individual names of taxa belonging to the Animal Kingdom. For practical purposes therefore this volume contains 58 applications submitted for decision. Similarly, certain of the applications were submitted by two or more joint authors and when account is taken of this fact the number of applicants is seen to be 62. VI 5. Of the 58 applications published in the present volume, six asked for Declarations (or equivalent rulings) on the meaning of particular provisions in the Régles. Further, four applications related to the status of certain zoological works. Thus, the number of applications exclusively concerned with names is 48. 6. Forty-one (41) (74.5 per cent.) of the applications published in the present volume are applications by specialists for the use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers. All these cases were concerned with individual names. 7. The 48 applications relating to individual names published in the present volume, when grouped by reference to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom to which the genera or species belong, were distributed as follows :— TABLE 1 Distribution of applications by Classes of the Animal Kingdom Name of Class Number of applications Rhizopoda Graptolithina Scyphozoa Nematoda Crustacea Insecta Arachnida Gastropoda Pelecypoda Cephalopoda Brachiopoda Pisces Reptilia Aves Mammalia NNW ND RR OF POR RR Total > ie 2) VII 8. When the 62 applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in which they are resident, applications are seen to have been received from specialists in the following countries :— TABLE 2 Distribution of applicants by country of residence Country of Residence Number of applicants Canada Denmark France Germany Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Venezuela —_ oo = CO Ne NNN We for) bo Total 9. The following table gives particulars of the proposals contained in applications in the present volume for addition of names to the Official Lists of valid names and works and to the corresponding Official Indexes of rejected and invalid names and works :— TABLE 3 Proposals for additions to the “* Official Lists ’’ and “‘ Official Indexes ”’ respectively Official Lists (valid names and works Official Indexes Category approved as available (rejected and invalid for zoological names and works) Specific names Generic names Family-Group Names Titles of Works Totals Vill 10. Of the 78 comments published in the present volume, several relate to two or more applications. In addition, several comments are incorporated either in original applications or in summaries later submitted by applicants. When account is taken of these facts, the total number of comments on applications is found to be 83. Of these eight were comments on proposed Declarations and one was a comment relating to the status of a zoological work. The remaining 74 related to applications concerning individual names. 11. If the comments on proposals regarding individual names are grouped according to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom to which the taxa concerned belong, the distribution of these comments is found to be as follows :— TABLE 4 Distribution of comments on applications relating to names, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom Name of Class Number of Comments Sceyphozoa 5 Crustacea 8 Trilobita 4 Insecta 11 Arachnida 20 Gastropoda 2 Crinoidea 1 Amphibia 2 Reptilia 8 Aves 2 Mammalia 11 Total 74 Ix 12. The 78 comments published in the present volume included two submitted by joint authors. When this is taken into account, it is found that the total number of specialists submitting comments was 83. 13. When the authors of comments published in this volume are grouped by reference to their country of residence, the distribution is found to be as follows :— TABLE 5 Distribution of authors of comments by country of residence of the authors concerned Country of Residence Number of authors of comments Austria Belgium Brazil Canada China Denmark Finland France Germany Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Sweden Union of South Africa United Kingdom United States of America Venezuela — CRW RE SE WR DHE we ee ep Total x 44. For the preparation of the authors’ and subject indexes of the present volume the Commission is again indebted to Miss Mary Cosh, M.A. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1. 31st December 1957. TABLE OF CONTENTS International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature : Balance Sheet as at 31st December 1956 and Income and Expenditure Accounts for the year 1956, with er: of the Committee of Management thereon .. ae : “ af iP Proposed use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of securing that the name bullata Miiller (O.F.), 1776, as published in the combination Akera bullata, shall be the oldest available name for the species currently so known (Class Gastropoda). By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) me ae Support for the proposal by F. Hemming relating to the genus Cupido Schrank, 1801 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Erich M. Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) .. Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the specific names bengalensis (Tupinambis) Daudin, [1802], and salvator (Stellio) Laurenti, 1768, shall be the oldest available names for the Veranid Lizards concerned. By Erich M. Hering Gee Museum der Humboldt-Universitaét zu Berlin). . ; re Proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic names Chrysophanus Hiibner, 1818, and Bithys Hiibner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) and N. D. a C.B.E. (British Museum i ane ee Support for the proposed use of the Plenary Powers (a) to secure the name jurtina Linnaeus and (b) to protect the name MANIOLIDI Verity, 1953 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Erich M. ee (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) . P Request for the designation under the Plenary Powers of a type species for the genus Cephalomutilla André (1908) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) in harmony with accustomed usage. By Clarence E. Mickel (Department of Entomology and Economic Zoology, University of Minnesota, Institute of Agriculture, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.). Addendum to application relating to the proposed determination under the Plenary Powers of the interpretation of the nominal species Actinocrinus gilbertsoni Kai 1836 ane eee: By J. Wright (Edinburgh) , XI Page 13 21 22 25 XII Proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Aurellia Lamarck, 1816 (Class Secyphozoa). By W. J. Rees, D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London) a eu a Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate for the genus Indiana Matthew, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda) a type species in harmony with accustomed usage. By P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Sheffield) “8 i - és wi Support for the proposal by Donald Baird on the generic names Anchisauripus Lull, 1904, and Otouphepus Cushman, 1904 (Class Reptilia: Theropoda [Ichnites]). By Edwin H. Colbert (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) ne aed Robert Mertens’s proposals regarding the specific names boiga Lacépéde, 1789, and pictus Gmelin, [1789], both published in combination with the generic name Coluber (Class Reptilia) Comment by Jay M. nana abhi of Southern Sis mia, Los Angeles) : : : Rejoinder by Robert Mertens (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) : int = Proposed addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid works in Zoology of the title of the German Translation by Martini (F.H.W.) published in 1767 under the title Kurze Abhandlung von den Conchylien of the work by Geoffroy (E.L.) published in the same year under the title Traité sommaire des Coquilles. By Francis Hemming (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Viviparus Montfort, 1810, and proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the family-group name VIVIPARIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1847 (Class Gastropoda). A. E. Ellis cite Wise. 3 Epsom, Surrey, England) : Proposed determination of interpretation of, and addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of (a) vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix vivipara and (b) of contectum Millet, 1813, as published in the combination Cyclostoma contectum, and proposed validation under the Plenary Powers of the family-group name VIVIPARIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1847 (Class Gastropoda, Order Prosobranchiata). By Lothar Forcart (Naturhistorsches Museum, Basel, Switzerland) *: 2 as ae 2 Page 26 29 31 32 32 35 38 a ee Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina- tion Helix vivipara, as interpreted by Miiller (O.F.), in 1774 (Class Gastropoda). By Caesar R. Boettger (Zoologisches Institut der Technischen Hochschule Braunschweig, Germany) ‘ uk Which of the two common British species of Viviparus Montfort, 1810 should be named Viviparus viviparus (Linnaeus) (—Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758)? By High Watson (Cambridge) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Paludina Feérussac, 1812, by suppressing the name Viviparus Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda, Order Prosobranchiata, Suborder Monotocardia). By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) a ef ae is 53 - 4 ay Support for the application by Dr. Stubblefield concerning the name Peltura Milne Edwards, 1840 (Class Trilobita). By Ronald Tripp (Glasgow, Scotland) ss ay ae os a e Report on Dr. James A. Oliver’s proposal for the emendation to mississippiensis of the specific name published as mississipiensis Daudin, [1801-1802], in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis (Class Reptilia). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. a aie Ea to the International Commission on Zoological N omenclature) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the Family-Group names MUNTIACINAE Pocock, 1923, and ODOBENIDAE (correction of ODOBAENIDAE) Allen (J.A.), 1880, as the Family-Group names for the genera containing the Barking Deer and the Walrus respectively (Class Mammalia). By T. C. 8. Morrison-Scott, D.S.C., D.Sc. (Director, Science Museum, London) Js ‘ ae Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Dictyoploca Jordan, 1911 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) by suppressing the name Dictyoploca Krauss, 1911 (Class Insecta, Order Embioptera). By Edward 8S. Ross (Curator of Insects, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) a Support for the application by Dr. Ross concerning Dictyoploca Jordan, 1911 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By E. McC. Callan series. University, Grahamstown, South Africa) ‘ “a XII Page 50 53 67 72 73 76 80 83 XIV Proposed use of the Plenary Powers (a) to designate a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758, and (b) to validate the emendation to erythropterus of the specific name of the nominal species Staphylinus erytropterus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). By C. E. Tottenham, M.A. (Zoological Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) : oy - os ws at ae ie Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Anopheles Meigen, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Alan Stone (Hntomology Research Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and Kenneth L. Knight (Bureau of Medicine and aes Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) .. . Support for Dr. H. W. Levi's application regarding the generic name Theridion Walckenaer, 1805 (Class Arachnida) By Harriet E. Frizzell (Bolla, Missouri, U.S.A.) By B. J. Kaston (Teachers College of Connecticut, New TaN, Connecticut, U.S.A.) . mal ane a zs By Vincent D. Roth (Yuma, Arizona, U.S.A.) By Allan F. Archer (Union University, Jackson, Tennessee, U.S.A.) By Clarence J. Goodnight pth he te sh ee ner U.S.A.) % By T. H. Savory (London) By Hans Tambs-Lyche (Norway) By J. E. Hull (Durham, England) By Harald Nemenz (Vienna) By J. Brandegird (Copenhagen) By Walter Hackman (Musewm Zoologicum Universitatis, Helsinki) .. By A. M. Chickering (Albion College, Albion, Michigan, U.S.A.) By G. H. Locket Sec M oe and A. F. A ose anual Surrey) és Objection to Dr. H. W. Levi’s proposals regarding the name Theridion Walckenaer, 1805 (Class Arachnida). By Otto Kraus (Sencken- bergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. Main) : Page 84 89 General support for the proposals relating to the generic name Theridion Walckenaer, 1805 (Class Arachnida) and counter-proposals on questions involved therein. By Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) Use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers involved in the counter- proposals on two points involved in Dr. Herbert W. Levi’s application regarding the generic name T'heridion Walckenaer, 1805 (Class Arachnida) submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G.. C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ? 8 ar Comments on the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name venolusa Laurenti, 1768, as published in the combination Hyla venulosa (as modified by Robert Mertens and Hobart M. Smith) Class Amphiba By William E. Duellman (Musewm of sepia cegeee il Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.) ae : By Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago Natural History Museum, U.S.A.) Support for the proposal by Donald Baird on the generic names Anchisauripus Lull, 1904 (Class Reptilia : Theropoda [Ichnites]) By D. M.S. Watson (University College, London) By C. C. Young (Academia Sinioa, Peking, China) By Joseph T. Gregory (Yale University, U.S.A.) Support for the application by R. P. Tripp and F. W. Whittard on Encrinurus Emmrich, 1844, and Odontochile Hawle & Corda, 1847 Class Trilobita By Christian Poulsen (Universitetets M eines ii i Institut, Denmark) : a sis ; ar P a3 By C. J. Stubblefield (Geological Survey and Museum, London) Support for the proposal by W. J. Rees to validate the generic name Aurelia Lamarck, 1816 (Class Scyphozoa). By F. S. Russell (Director, Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom) Support for the proposals by P. C. Sylvester-Bradley regarding the following generic names in the Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda : Limnocythere Brady, 1868; Candona Baird, [1846]; Conchoecia Dana, 1849. By Gerd Hartmann (Museum der Stadt, Osnabriick) .. XV Page 96 98 99 101 101 101 102 102 103 103 104 XVI Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to determine the interpretation of the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) (proposed clarification of a ruling given in Opinion 91). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) .. aA Es a ns Pe : Appendix 1: Note on the authorship and date attributable to the name Vespertilio discolor commonly attributed to Natterer and treated as having been published in 1819 .. Annexe 1 to Appendix 1: Extract from a letter dated 22nd March 1956 from A. M. Husson (Rijksmuseum van Natuur- lijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ope Annexe 2 to Appendix 1: Extract from a letter dated 6th April 1956, from T. C. S. Morrison-Scott ia Museum (Natural History), London) ra a an Appendix 2: Two points arising in connection with the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829 Annexe to Appendix 2: Reports on the gender attributable to the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829, furnished by Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as Appendix 3: Views as to the interpretation of the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, published by Gerritt S. Miller, Jr. in 1897 and by Olof Ryberg in 1947 respectively Appendix 4: Views as to the interpretation of the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, received from specialists in answer to the questionnaire issued on 13th March 1956 . Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Toxorhynchites Theobald, as published in 1901 in the Journal of Tropical Medicine (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Alan Stone (Entomology Research Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), and Kenneth L. Knight (Bureau of Medicine and Surgery pistes os the ie fe D.C., U.S.A.) : Support for the proposal by F. Hemming and N. D. Riley relating to the generic names Chrysophanus and Bithys Hibner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Erich M. ee Fe eioe Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) . Page 107 115 116 118 119 121 122 124 128 131 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers (a) to stabilise the interpretation of the nominal species Bulla truncatula Brugiére, [1792], and (b) to validate the specific name wmbilicata Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Bulla umbilicata (Class Gastropoda). By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) .. Support for the application by R. P. Tripp and W. F. Whittard regarding the generic name Hncrinurus Emmrich, 1844 (Class Trilobita). By James L. Begg (Glasgow) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers (a) to suppress the specific name squilla Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer squilla, and (b) to substitute the name Palaemon adspersus Rathke, 1837, as the name to be cited as that of the type species of the genus Palaemon Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 5; iF ‘ ve . ei wt Support for the proposal by W. J. Rees concerning the generic name Aurelia Lamarck, 1816 (Class Scyphozoa) By Dr. P. L. Kramp (Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) By J. Horan pie Home seek ae Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen) , : ae sf is 4 By Cadet Hand sntriniic i seems nace nL: U.S.A.) By : Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, and to designate Gordius medinensis Linnaeus, 1758, as type species in harmony with accustomed usage (Class Nematoda) (validation of an erroneous entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology made by the ruling given in Opinion 66). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) up Annexe 1: Extract from a paper by Professor R. T. Leiper entitled ** Discussion of the Validity of certain Generic Names in use in medical Helminthology ” published in 1926 Annexe 2: Note on the thesis by Reichard (J.J.), entitled De Pediculis inquinalibus, insectis et vermibus homini molestis [Praeses : Kniphof (J.H.)] published in 1759 XVII Page 136 142 153 153 XVIII Proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Taeniorhynchus Lynch-Arribalzaga, 1891, and proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Mansonia Blanchard, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Alan Stone (Entomology Research Branch, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and Kenneth L. Knight (Bureau of Medicine and Surgery pas ok the a pa DG. U.S.A.) : Annexe : Particulars of authors using the generic names Taeniorhynchus Lynch-Arribalzaga, 1891, and Mansonia Blanchard, 1901, respectively in the sense of Culex titillans Walker, 1848, and Relatives Sic ge oe Js Report on the ornithological repercussions of the Stone / Knight proposal relating to the generic name Mansonia Blanchard, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ig S és aif Proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying and extending the provisions of the ‘‘ Code of Ethics”. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ae ol os ae Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name musicus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination T'urdus musicus and to approve a neotype for T'urdus iliacus Linnaeus, 1758, the Eurasian Redwing (Class Aves). By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.), and Charles Vaurie (The American Museum m Natural History, New York) = Appendix : Designation of a Neotype ee the scieiell species Turdus iliacus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves). By Count Nils A (Naturhistoriska Rijksmuseum, Stockholm, Sweden) Comment on Dr. Elwood C. Zimmerman’s proposal to add to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the names Ocobia Hiibner, [1825], and Hellula Guénée, 1845 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Eugene Munroe (Insect Systematics and Biological Control Unit, Entomology Division, Science Service, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada) Proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Oeobia Hiibner, [1825] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. By Eugene Munroe (Insect Systematics and Biological Control Unit, Entomology Division, Science eigen Department id Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada) als - ae ’ Page 160 163 167 171 177 181 183 186 Support for the application by J. A. Oliver concerning the emendation to mississippiensis of the specific name published as mississipiensis Daudin, [1801-1802], in the combination Crocodilus mississipiensis (Class Reptilia). By Hobart M. Smith am gps ‘is Illinois, Illinois, U.S.A.) Urbana, . . +3 Comment on Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley’s proposal regarding the genus Indiana Matthew, 1902 (Class Crustacea). By C. J. Stubblefield (Geological Survey and Museum, London) Ee Se ts om Amendment of proposals concerning the use of Plenary Powers in the case of the genus Indiana Matthew, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda). By P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Sheffield) _ Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to direct that the family-group name ORBULINIDAE Schultze, 1854, is not to be given precedence Over GLOBIGERINIDAE Carpenter, Parker and Jones, 1862 (Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera) by authors who refer the two type genera to the same family-group taxon. By Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr. (Creole Petroleum Corporation Jusepin, Monagas, Venezuela) Support for the application by W. J. Rees regarding the generic name Aurelia Lamarck, 1816 (Class Seyphozoa). By M. Vannucci a nstituto Oceanografico, Reset sileds de Sao Paulo) : ‘ ais Support for Dr. H. W. Levi’s application regarding the generic name Theridion Walckenaer, 1805 (Class Arachnida) By A. Kaestner (Direktor des Zoologischen Museums, Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin) ‘ Se ea : e By Dr. Hermann Wiehle (Dessau/Anh., Germany) By R. R. Forster (Director, Otago Museum, New Zealand) By Willis J. Gertsch (The American Museum of Natural History) .. Proposed adoption of a Declaration prescribing the gender to be attributed for generic names having the terminations “ -ides” -ites”’, and “-oides”. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., CB.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological N omenciabure) Support for the proposal by A. E. Ellis regarding the Viviparus/Paludina complex (Class Gastropoda). By Horace B. Baker eye sarki ment, University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) . xIX Page 189 190 191 194 199 200 200 200 200 203 205 ».©.¢ Proposed addition of the name Cyzicus Audouin, 1837 (Class Crustacea, Order Conchostraca) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and matters incidental thereto. By N. T. Mattox (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.) ° Pet Proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the procedure to be adopted under Article 14 when a specific name is published in an abbreviated form. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) wy Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species in harmony with accustomed use for Labeceras Spath, 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), a genus based upon a mis- identified type species. By C. W. Wright (London) .. Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate for the genus Calycoceras Hyatt, 1900 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) a type species in harmony with existing practice. By C. W. Wright (London) : op “3 a me et att os Anopheles Meigen, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (The Stone/ Knight proposal) Support by Ernestine B. Thurman (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.) i Corrigendum Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Hoplitoplacenticeras (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Upper Cretaceous) as from Paulcke, 1906, and to determine its type species. By C. W. Wright (London) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Kotoceras Yabe, 1927, for the purpose of validating the names Kotoceras Kobayashi, 1934 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea) and Damesites Matsumoto, 1942 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By C. W. Wright (London) re i RA Proposal to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature the booklet ‘‘ Testacea Minuta Rariora ”’ by William Boys, as augmented by Geo. Walker, London, [1784]. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) Proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying certain problems arising in connection with names published in works written in Latin. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) y sy a Page 206 210 213 216 220 220 221 225 228 2390 Proposed adoption of a Declaration on the question whether adjectival specific names consisting of not fully Latinised words should be treated, under Article 14 of the Régles, as consisting of ‘‘ barbarous ” words and therefore as being exempt from change in gender. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) se of “ae Appendix : On the application of the Rule of Gender Agreement in the case of specific names which are adjectival but have not been Latinised. By L. W. Grensted, M.A., D.D. (Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name parvula Moérch, 1863, as published in the combination Aplysia parvula (Class Gastropoda). By N. B. Eales (Department of Zoology, Reading University, Reading) ds ans es oh oe Support for the application regarding the nominal species T'urdus musicus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves). By E. Stresemann (Berlin, Germany) ait td Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the generic name Anodonta Lamarck, 1799 (Class Pelecypoda) shall be the oldest available name for the genus concerned (proposed validation of a Ruling given in Opinion 94). By Fritz Haas (Curator of Lower Invertebrates, Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois) .. Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the application of the specific name padi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Aphis padi to the European Bird Cherry Aphid (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). os J. P. Doncaster (British Museum oe atural H: rau London) ; ae BS é as ; Support for the proposal by A. E. Ellis regarding the Viviparus/Paludina complex (Class Gastropoda). By Mrs. W. 8S. S. Van Der Feen (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, Holland) a “od Proposed determination under the Plenary Powers of the interpretation of the nominal species TJerebratula lineata Young & Bird, 1828 (Phylum Brachiopoda, Class Articulata). By D. V. re a ae College of Science and Technology, London) XXI Page 235 237 240 244 245 248 250 251 XXII Proposed determination under the Plenary Powers of the interpretation of the nominal species Rhynchonella subconcinna Davidson, 1852 (Phylum Brachiopoda, Class Articulata). By D. V. Ager (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London) mr ae is Proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name anonyma Lewis (W.A.), 1872, as published in the combination Limenitis anonyma (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) and N. D. iglle C.B.E. Oe Museum (Natural Banc ‘y), London) as Support for the proposed suppression of the generic names Chrysophanus and Bithys, both of Hiibner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order sesgetibi By Jean Bourgogne (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) . Support for the proposal to validate the generic name Toxorhynchites Theobald, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Ernestine B. Thurman (Dept. 5 oe U reer we M me pag bt U.S.A.) : Objections to the proposals of C. E. Tottenham for the emendation to erythropterus of the specific name erytropterus Linnaeus, 1758 (Staphylinus) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), and to the proposal of Pierre Bonnet for the emendation to Theridiwm of the generic name Theridion Walckenaer, 1805 (Class Arachnida). By Erich M. Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) .. Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828 (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata), a name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the ~ Ruling given in Opinion 92. By Hobart M. Smith (Department id Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; Support for the proposal regarding the generic name Mansonia Blanchard, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). By Harry D. Pratt (Department of Health and Welfare, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic names Liptena Westwood, [1851], and Pentila Westwood, [1851] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) for use in their accustomed sense and to present the transfer of those names to genera for which they have never been employed. By Francis ora a C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) and H. Stempffer (Paris) es ‘ > ee Support for the Hemming/Stempffer application for the preservation of the generic names Liptena and Pentila (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) for use in their accepted sense. By N. D. poe C.B.E. (British Museum (Natural History), London) : Page 254 257 263 263 264 267 279 280 286 Proposed designation under the Plenary Powers of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Centris Fabricius, 1804, and proposed validation under the same Powers of the specific name dimidiata Fabricius 1793, as published in the combination Apis dimidiata (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). By Charles D. Michener (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) .. Proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the question whether in the case of a zoological name in which two adjacent vowels constitute separate syllables a symbol signifying the diaeresis should under Article 20 of the Régles be placed over the second of the vowels concerned. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ; tp Supplementary action under the Plenary Powers recommended for the purpose of securing that the name Palaemon adspersus Rathke, 1837 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) shall be the oldest available name for the taxon in question. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ie Proposed amplification in certain respects of the suggested Declaration relating to the procedure to be adopted under Article 14 when a specific name is published in an abbreviated form. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Ss: £8 WS aa Annexe 1: Correspondence between Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr. (Jusepin, Monagas, Venezuela) and Francis Hemming (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Annexe 2: Support for and proposed extension of the Declaration suggested by Secretary Hemming to cover the case of a name proposed in an abbreviated form. By J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.., U.S.A.) .. sve vs a Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to set aside in the interests of stability “ First Reviser ” selections made for the generic name Selene Lacépéde, 1803, and for the specific names rostrata Lesueur, 1817 (Muraena), latipinna Lesueur, 1821 (Mollienesia), and fuscus Storer, 1839 (Syngnathus) (Class Pisces). By Reeve M. Bailey (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, BAe y af ie = _ se ae a Support for the application regarding the generic name Labeceras Spath, 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea). By D. T. Donovan (Department of Geology, University of Bristol) a XXIII Page 287 294 299 300 302 303 308 XXIV Request for a Ruling determining the authorship to be attributed to the various portions of the work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Poissons written partly by Cuvier and partly by Valenciennes and published in the period 1828-1850. By Reeve M. Bailey (Museum of eee University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) %: Annexe: Authorship of various portions and Dates of Publication of the Histoire Naturelle des Poissons by Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1828-1850 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate for three taxa belonging to the Class Graptolithina lectotypes which will secure the continued use of the names concerned in their accustomed sense. By O. M. B. Bulman, Sc.D., F.R.S. sees ena wikis ee ie is Ceres Cambridge) ; Support for the proposed adoption of a Declaration authorising the use of the symbol for the diaeresis. By Charles H. Blake (Hillsboro, North Carolina, U.S.A.) .. ie Fs x vi F Comments on the Indiana Case (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda) By Valdar Jaanusson and Anders Martinsson neo Universitets, Uppsala, Sweden) we By Mlle. C. Dechaseaux re de ate Sorbonne, Paris) za ot : — by By H. B. Whittington (Museum of separa ch at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) . : : By RB. S. Bassler (U.S. National Musewm, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Support for the application regarding the booklet “ Testacea minuta rariora ’’ by Boys and Walker, [1784]. By Arthur N. ert pact Jr. (Creole Petroleum Corp., Jusepin, Venezuela) . : é ¢ Support for the proposed adoption of a Declaration to treat barbarous words as exempt from change in gender. By Leo Sheljuzhko (Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates Munich, Germany) .. Support for the application to validate the specific name parvula Morch, 1863, as published in the combination Aplysia parvula (Class Gastropoda). By H. Engel (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam) Page 309 311 313 317 318 318 318 319 319 320 320 321 Support for the proposal that “ -ides,” “ites” and “ -oides” names be considered to be of masculine gender By W. A. Macfadyen (London) By Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) .. Obituary Notice: Professor Teiso Esaki Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of two generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) and to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology of the family-group names based upon the generic names in question. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) Corrigenda Index to authors of applications and of comments on applications Subject Index .. Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present volume was published : aa ae by: A: Instructions to binders BE* XXV Page 321 322 323 327 331 333 337 381 382 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FINANCIAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR 1956 FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR THE YEAR 1956 (Report approved and adopted by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in Annual General Meeting) INTRODUCTORY (a) Principal Achievements in the Year 1956 The results achieved in the year 1956 were in general extremely gratifying, surpassing even those secured in 1955. Both in number and in volume publications issued exceeded those published in any previous year and the revenue accruing from the sales of these publications reached a new record level. The financial results obtained are particularly satisfactory not only because of the evidence which they afford of the importance attached to the work of the Commission by a growing number of zoologists and palaeontologists in different parts of the world, but also because they give ground for the hope that, if present policies are firmly adhered to, the work of the Commission may within a measurable distance of time be placed on a self-supporting basis. The interest of specialists in the work of the Commission was strikingly displayed by the steady flow of new applications received during the year, many of them from specialists making applications for the first time. Within the Office of the Commission the position as regards the handling of applications showed a further marked improvement. Three out of the four stages at which formerly delays—often serious—occurred have now been completely elimi- nated. First, it is at length possible to claim that, when an application has once been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Voting Papers in regard to the proposal submitted are issued promptly on the close of the Prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period, save in particular cases where there are grounds for considering it desirable that a longer period should be allowed for the receipt of comments from specialists on the action recommended by the applicant. Second, the disappearance of arrears represented by cases on which decisions had been taken by the Commission but on which Opinions had not been prepared has made it possible for Opinions to be prepared-immediately upon the completion of the vote by the Commission on the cases concerned. Third, the fact that there is no longer an accumulation of Opinions awaiting publication has made it possible for Opinions to be despatched to the printer immediately upon being completed. Finally, the close co-operation established between the Trust and its printers and the high degree of skill which the latter have acquired in the printing of the highly technical documents concerned has made it possible to secure the publication of Opinions within two months of their being despatched to the printer. The only phase of the work of the iv Office of the Commission which is still not fully up to date is that represented by the period between the receipt of applications and their despatch to the printer. In those cases where on examination an application is found to have been prepared in due form and to contain all the necessary particulars, in regard to the status of the names concerned (including the necessary biblio- graphical references) and in regard to current usage by specialists in the group concerned, the application concerned is immediately despatched to the printer for publication in the Bulletin. In the majority of cases, however, applications on receipt are found to be incomplete in some particulars or another and further correspondence with the applicant is required. It not infrequently happens that the issue left unresolved is found to be of an intractable character and that a considerable amount of further work both by the applicant and by the Office of the Commission is needed before the application is ready to be submitted to the Commission. Thus there is always a considerable body of cases on which work is being actively pursued but which have not reached the stage at which the applications concerned can be sent to the printer. In a much larger number of cases, however, the communications reaching the Office of the Commission are of a preliminary character only and require a large amount of work before the necessary formal application to the Commission can be prepared. It is in respect of this type of case that there is still a considerable accumulation of problems submitted to the Office of the Commission which have been outstanding for varying, and in some cases long, periods. In this group also substantial inroads have been made during the last two years but the position in this regard will not be satisfactory until the staff of the Office of the Commission has been reinforced by at least one more zoologist capable of examining applications received in an incomplete or provisional form and of advising the Secretary as to the nature of the nomenclatorial issues on which further information needs to be obtained from the applicant. 2. It is, however, not only in regard to the volume of work performed in dealing with the successive stages through which every application has to pass from the time of its receipt until the publication of the Opinion embodying the decision of the Commission on the nomenclatorial issues submitted that the year 1956 has been memorable. For during the year also notable progress has been made in two special fields of great importance. First, the year 1956 has witnessed the completion of the work of collating and co-ordinating the official records of the large number of decisions in regard to the text of the Régles Internationales taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and by its successor, the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. The results so obtained form, as will be appreciated, the essential background against which will need to be judged the draft of the revised text of the Régles which will be placed before the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London in 1958. Second, the year 1956 has witnessed the completion of the principal stage in the preparation of a project which the Trust has long had in mind, that is, the publication in book- form of the first instalments of the Official Lists of valid zoological names wrt y Vv and of the titles of works approved as available for zoological nomenclature and of the Official Indexes of rejected and invalid zoological names and the corresponding Official Index of the titles of works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes. The long delay which has occurred in giving effect to this project is attributable to the need recognised by the Paris Congress of 1948 for a thorough review of the entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology during the period up to the end of 1936 at a time when it was not considered necessary to provide the bibliographical and other particulars now needed in connection with the preparation of the definitive edition of the Official List. Moreover, the fact that in the foregoing period the Commission lacked the means of making adequate consultations with specialists in the groups concerned led inevitably to the inclusion in the above Official List of erroneous entries in certain cases. From this point of view also a close scrutiny of the older entries on this Official List was found to be necessary. By the close of the year 1956, however, the action by the Commission needed in the light of the survey of the entries on the Official List was practically complete. The Trust looks forward therefore to being able to arrange in 1957 for the publication of the first instalments of the Official Lists and Official Indexes. The Trust is aware from the many communications which it has received that the appearance of these volumes is anxiously awaited by zoologists and palaeontologists in many parts of the world and it is confident that their publication will be widely welcomed as filling a long-felt want and as providing a most valuable instrument for the stabilisation of zoological nomenclature. (b) Preparations for the discussions on zoological nomenclature to be held in connection with the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958 3. During the year 1956 a great deal of thought was given by the Trust to the arrangements to be made for the discussions on zoological nomenclature - to be held in connection with the meeting of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology in London in July 1958. In this connection the Trust has established close relations with Sir Gavin de Beer, the President of the coming Congress, and with Professor H. W. Hewer, the Secretary-General of that Congress, thereby ensuring that the arrangements to be made by the Trust in the field of zoological nomenclature shall fit appropriately into the general structure of the plans being made by Sir Gavin de Beer and his colleagues for the Congress as a whole. The London Congress will be of outstanding importance as regards zoological nomenclature, for it is hoped to harvest at it the reforms of the Régles Internationales decided upon by the Paris Congress in 1948 and the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 by the final approval and promulgation of definitive texts in English and French of the Régles as revised by the foregoing Congresses. In order to promote the achievement of this aim, vi it is the intention of the Trust to follow the procedure successfully adopted in connection with the Copenhagen Congress of summoning a representative Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature to meet in London a week before the Congress for the purpose of examining the draft of the English text of the Régles as revised by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses which the latter Congress agreed should be laid before it for this purpose. It has been arranged that the Congress itself shall open on Wednesday, 16th July 1958, and it is accordingly proposed that the Colloquium should begin its work on Wednesday, 9th July 1958. The arrangements for the provision of accommodation for the Colloquium and matters connected therewith have now been concerted by the Trust with the Authorities of the Congress. The Trust proposes as early as possible in 1957 to issue invitations to specialists to take part in the Colloquium. In the first instance the Trust proposes to issue invitations to all those to whom invitations were issued in connection with the Colloquium held at Copenhagen in 1953. The Trust thinks it likely, however, that there may be other specialists attending the London Congress who would wish to take part in the Colloquium and it has accordingly made an arrangement with the Authorities of the Congress under which the Colloquium will be brought to the attention of all zoologists on enrolling as members of the Congress and provision will be made for invitations to be issued by the Trust to any such zoologist who may notify the Secretary-General (on a form to be included among the preliminary Congress documents) of his wish to take part in the Colloquium. Finally, special arrangements have been made with the Secretary-General of the Congress under which, as at the Copenhagen Congress, palaeontologists who take part in the Colloquium but who do not propose to attend the Congress will be permitted to be present at the meetings of the Section on Nomenclature (though not any of the other functions of the Congress) without actually enrolling themselves as Congress Members. 4, Careful consideration has been given by the Trust also to the question of the provision of documents for use at the discussions on zoological nomen- clature to be held in connection with the London Congress. The documents . which will be required are of two kinds: first, the draft of the text of the Régles as revised by the Paris Congress in 1948 and by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 ; second, all the documents which may be submitted containing either comments on the draft of the revised text of the Régles placed before the Congress or suggestions for the further improvement of the Régles. As regards proposals for the further amendment of the Régles, the President of the coming Congress has, however, informed the Trust that it is proposed to ask the Section on Nomenclature to treat as a first priority the examination of the draft of the revised text of the Régles which will be placed before it after the completion of the examination of that document by the Colloquium on Zoological Nomen- clature, sitting jointly with the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, this subject to be dealt with by the Section before any other item on its Agenda. In order to facilitate discussion in the Colloquium and in the Section on Nomenclature the Trust has decided to allot two volumes of the vii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to serve as the Zoological Nomenclature Agenda Paper for the London Congress. The volumes so allotted will be Volumes 14. and 15. Volume 14 will contain the draft of the English text of the Réegles as amended by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) Congresses which at the request of the latter Congress has been prepared by Professor J. Chester Bradley. This draft was received in the Office of the Trust during the year under review and will be sent to the printer as early as possible in 1957. Volume 15 will contain all the comments which may be received on the text of the draft prepared by Professor Bradley, together with all the documents containing proposals for the further amendment of the Régles which may be received. A certain number of such documents have already reached the Office of the Commission. These will be published in the opening Parts of Volume 15 of the Bulletin. Finally, the Trust has in mind to prepare on the eve of the Colloquium and the Congress a consolidated statement setting out the titles of all the documents published as Volume 15 of the Bulletin arranged by reference to the relevant Articles in the Régles. A complimentary copy of each of the foregoing volumes will be presented by the Trust to each zoologist who takes part in the work of the Colloquium. PART 1 ANALYSIS OF THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR 1956 (a) INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT (i) Income 5. Progress made in 1956 in the review of “ Opinions ’’ published in the period up to the end of 1986 : The year 1956 witnessed substantial progress in: the carrying through of the programme initiated by the Trust in the previous year for the publication in Volumes constituting supplementary Sections of Volume 1 in the “ Opinions and Declarations ”’ Series of Directions embodying decisions taken by the Commission in the process of the review of the Opinions rendered by it in the period up to the end of 1936 undertaken in accordance with a General Directive issued by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Paris in 1948. Section C of Volume 1 of the foregoing series was completed during the year by the publication of five further Directions and the necessary concluding Index Part. An immediate start was made with the publication of Section D which, with the publication of eighteen Parts containing an equal number of Directions, was complete by the end of the year with the exception of the concluding Index Part. The publication of these Directions represented an indispensible stage in the preparations which have long been in hand for the publication in book-form of volumes containing full particulars of all the entries so far made on the Official Lists and Official Indexes. ‘ 6. Particulars of “ Opinions ’’, “‘ Declarations ’’ and “‘ Directions ’’ published in 1956 : In the early part of 1956 the Publications Programme of the Trust was seriously impeded by industrial troubles in the London printing trade. This began in the third week of the year, when, on the instructions of the Unions, the printing operatives stopped all overtime shifts and began to “work to rule”. About a month later this led to a complete stoppage by the dismissal by the owners of the operatives affected. Normal working was not resumed until the 27th March. There was, therefore, a period of about ten weeks during which the Commission’s Publications Programme was seriously interrupted, first by a month of working to rule and then by six weeks actual stoppage at the printing works. These disturbances were naturally a source of great anxiety to the Trust not only because they represented a regrettable check in its programme for publishing the decisions of the Commission but also because of the adverse effect upon its income. On the resumption of work special efforts were made by the Trust’s printers and their operatives to wipe off the accumulated arrears of printing and as a result of these efforts, which the Trust is glad to have the opportunity of acknowledging, the accumulated backlog was completely worked off by the middle of the year. During the year 1956 a total of ninety-six Opinions, Declarations and Directions (fifty-nine Opinions, nine Declarations, and twenty-eight Directions) were published, as compared with a total of eighty-four in 1955. During the year under review units were published belonging to no less than seven volumes in the “ Opinions and Declarations ”’ Series. Of these volumes two (Volume 1 Section C and Volume 1 Section D), to which reference has already been made, were concerned exclusively with the results of the survey undertaken by the Commission of Opinions rendered by it up to the end of 1936. Of the remaining volumes of which units were published in 1956 (Volumes 11—14) contained further instalments of Opinions and Declarations and associated Directions. Of the remaining volume (Volume 10) the only part published was the concluding Index Part. In addition during the year two other Index Parts ix were published (Volume 1 Section C and Volume 11). The total number of Parts of volumes in the Opinions and Declarations Series published during the year amounted therefore to ninety-nine, as compared with ninety in 1955. The total number of pages published in the Opinions and Declarations Series in 1956 amounted to 1,995 as compared with 1,792 in the preceding year. This difference is due less to the fact that the number of Parts published was slightly greater than 1956 than to the fact that many of the Directions published in Section C and D of volume 1, dealing as they did with a very large number of separate points, were exceptionally long. The Parts published in 1956 were the following :— Vol.1C: 6 Parts (Directions 31-35 ; Index), 150 pp. Vol. 1D: 18 Parts (Directions 36-40, 42-45, 47-52, 55-57), 388 pp. Vol.10: 1 Part (Index), 68 pp. Vol.11: 5 Parts (Opinions 377-379 : Direction 41 ; Index), 71 pp. Vol. 12: 26 Parts (Opinions 380-400; Declarations 21, 22; Directions 46, 53, 54), 488 pp. Vol. 13: 21 Parts (Opinions 401-416 ; Declarations 23-26 ; Direction 58), 340 pp. Vol. 14: 22 Parts (Opinions 417-435 ; Declarations 27-29), 490 pp. 7. Income in 1956 from sales of the “ Opinions and Declarations ”’ Series : Income from the sale of units of the Opinions and Declarations Series amounted in 1956 to the record figure of £7,235 8s. 3d., an increase of £1,543 17s. 9d. over that obtained in 1955 (£5,691 10s. 6d.). The continued progress secured in this field, as the result for the most part of additional subscribers, is very gratifying, affording as it does a striking testimony to the growing importance attached to the work of the Commission by institutions concerned with systematic zoology in various parts of the world. 8. Publication in 1956 of further instalments of the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” : The number of Parts of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature published in 1956 amounted to fourteen, including two Index Parts (for Volumes 9 and 11). Of the remaining twelve Parts, one was the last Part of Volume 11 (apart from the concluding Index Part which it was not found possible to publish during the year) and eleven Parts belonging to Volume 12, the whole of which was thus also completed with the exception of the final Index Part. The total number of new applications published in the Bulletin x in 1956 amounted to fifty-eight (fifty-seven requests for Opinions in regard to individual names, and one an interpretative Declaration). This was some- what less than in 1955 when the new applications published amounted to sixty- seven (individual cases, fifty-seven: requests for Declarations, ten). Some of the applications published in 1956 were of exceptional complexity and therefore of considerable length and it is for this reason that, despite the fact that the number of new applications published during the year under review was less than in 1955, the number of pages of the Bulletin published in the two years was almost exactly the same (1956, 319 pp. ; 1955, 324 pp.). 9. Income in 1956 from sales of the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ : Income from sales of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature amounted in 1956 to the sum of £3,703 9s. lld. The sum so obtained exceeds that secured in 1955 (£1,984 2s. 5d.) by £1,719 7s. 6d. and is in fact the largest amount ever obtained from the sale of the Bulletin in a single year. The improvement in income from the sale of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, like the corresponding improvement in the income obtained from the sale of the Opinions and Declarations Series, is attributable mainly to a highly gratifying increase in the number of subscribers. 10. Income from sales of the work ‘‘ Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature ’’ : No income was obtained in 1956 from the sale of the work Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, the whole of the stock having been sold by the end of 1955. It has been necessary, however, to include an item under this head in the Income and Expenditure Account for the year 1956 in order to show for the purposes of comparison the income received from this source in 1955 (£46 7s. 0d.). 11. Total Income from sales of Publications: Income from the sale of publications in 1956 amounted to £10,938 18s. 2d., an increase of £3,216 18s. 3d. over the income (£7,721 19s. 11d.) obtained from this source in 1955. The price policy of the Trust remained substantially unchanged during 1956 and, in consequence, the increase in the figures for 1956 as compared with those for 1955 reflects a marked growth in the demand for the publications of the Trust and in the interest and value attached to the work of the Commission by zoologists and. palaeontologists. 12. Donation Received : The Trust has pleasure in gratefully acknowledging a gift of ten dollars which realised £3 10s. 9d. received during the year from the American Ornithologists’ Union. xi 13. Grant received through the International Union for Biological Sciences from U.N.E.S.C.0. : In the year 1956 the Trust received from U.N.E.S.C.O. through the International Union for Biological Sciences a gift of $1,000 as compared with a gift of $500 in 1955. The sum in Sterling so realised in respect of the gift received in 1956 amounted to £357 2s. 10d. as compared with the sum of £178 lls. 5d. similarly received in 1955. The Trust attaches importance to maintaining its long-established and cordial relations with these International Agencies and gratefully acknowledges the assistance given by them in 1956. 14. Total Income in 1956: Total income in 1956 made up of the items described in the preceding paragraphs amounted to £11,299 lls. 9d. At this level it exceeded total income in 1955 (£7,906 1s. 7d.) by the sum of £3,393 10s. 2d. Encouraging as is in many ways the increase in income obtained in 1956, the total sum so secured, even if it can be maintained from year to year in the future, would, for the reasons explained later in the present report, be barely sufficient to cover the necessary expenses of the Office of the Commission if these were to be placed upon a normal business footing instead of, as at present, being met to a considerable extent by subsidies in kind provided by the Secretary. (ii) Expenditure 15. Administrative Expenses : The year 1956 witnessed a further substantial increase in the activity of the Office of the Commission and consequently in the expenditure incurred on administrative services. This increase in the general work of the Office was due to a variety of causes, notable among which were the initiation of a system of comprehensive consultations with specialists on problems of special difficulty before any proposal thereon was formulated for submission to the Commission, the progress made in dealing with applications and in preparing them for despatch to the printer. Side by side with these activities there was a steady maintenance of work in connection with such matters as the issue of Voting Papers, the preparation and publication of Opinions, Declarations and Directions, the preparations for the publication of the Official Lists and Official Indexes in book-form, and the collation and co-ordination of the decisions affecting the text of the Régles taken by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses which had been initiated in 1955 in connection with the arrangements for the consideration by the Fifteenth International ‘Congress of Zoology in London in 1958 of the draft of a revised text of the Régles embodying the amendments agreed upon by those Congresses. Perhaps the most significant index of general activity is that provided by the flow of incoming letters reaching the Office of the Commission. xii Incoming letters in 1956 amounted to about 2,000 as compared with about 1,600 in 1955, an increase of 25 per cent. Further, new cases registered during the year amounted to 130. Apart from the general increase in administrative expenses resulting from the growth in the volume of business handled by the Office of the Commission, there were two other contributory causes during the year under review. First, expenditure on salaries showed an appreciable increase as the result of a decision taken early in the year to increase the number of posts of the administrative grade and the substitution of a post of whole-time copy-typist in place of the part-time post previously found sufficient. In addition, during the year the Trust felt it proper to grant incre- ments in salary to certain of the members of its staff who have been in its employment for a considerable time. Second, the general rise in prices led to increased expenditure on office supplies of all kinds. Total expenditure on salaries in the year under review amounted to £1,262 5s. Od., as compared with £832 18s. 5d. in 1955, an increase of £429 6s. 7d. over the previous year. Office expenses in 1956 amounted to £1,281 10s. 3d. or about double that in 1955 (£623 19s. 10d.). This increase is attributable in part to the causes to which reference has already been made, and in part also to three items which did not figure in the Accounts for 1955. The first of these was in respect of the storage of the stock of the publications of the Trust, a matter which for some years had been causing serious anxiety. As will be understood, the rapid growth in the number of units published by the Trust in recent years had led to the most serious congestion in the small office at Queen’s Gate maintained by the Trust as its Publications Office. Indeed, throughout 1955 a considerable quantity of the stock of the Trust’s publications had, through the kindness of the Royal Entomological Society of London, been stored at Queen’s Gate in portions of the building occupied by the Society. It became evident to the Trust that this was an arrangement which could not be allowed to continue in fairness to the Society. It was, moreover, very unsatisfactory to the Trust for it made the systematic storage of its publications quite impossible. Early in the year, therefore, the Trust set about finding suitable alternative accommodation. Ultimately an arrangement was made with its printers by which the Trust rented at £10 a month a large room on the top storey of the printing works in the City of London which was specially fitted with racks for the purpose. In addition, a substantial outlay was inevitably incurred on the removal of stocks of publications from Queen’s Gate to the City, on the sorting of the stocks of each unit and on the return to the Publications Office at Queen’s Gate of a small supply of each item for use for current sales. Total expenditure incurred under this head during the year amounted to £286 (nine months rent, £90 ; removal and sorting of stock, etc., £196). The other item which represented a substantial element of new expenditure (amounting to £113) was in respect of book binding. The greater part of this expenditure was in respect of the binding-up of the correspondence and other documents, often very voluminous, relating to cases on which Opinions, Declarations or Directions had already been rendered by the Commission and published by the Trust. Experience had shown that reference to these records was frequently necessary in the course of current work and great inconvenience had been experienced at times by reason of a decision taken during the inter-war years to destroy all the earlier records of the work of the Commission. It was accordingly decided in 1956 to resume the policy initiated in 1939 of binding-up into volumes the documents relating to past cases. Expenditure in respect of the audit of the Accounts of the Trust was raised during the year from 30 guineas to 50 guineas, this increase reflecting the substantial growth in the number of transactions effected annually which had occurred since this item was last reviewed. Total administrative expenses made up of the items noted above amounted in 1956 to the sum of £2,596 5s. 3d. as compared with £1,488 8s. 3d. in 1955. As in previous years, the items shown under this head in the Accounts represent substantially less than the actual cost of maintaining the work of the Commission during the year, and very much less than what that cost would have been if the Office of the Commission were organised on a normal business footing; for Mr. Hemming again provided office accommodation amounting to four rooms for the use of the Commission free of rent in his private residence, and discharged the duties of head of that Office on a wholetime basis without remuneration. 16. Depreciation of Office Equipment : During the year a sum of £18 9s. 6d. was appropriated towards depreciation of office equipment, this sum representing 10 per cent. of the value of this equipment at cost, less allowances in respect of depreciation made in previous years. The corresponding item for 1955 was £17 9s. 4d. 17. Expenditure on printing Scientific Publications : During the year 1956 the sum of £4,233 18s. 8d. was expended on the printing of Opinions, Declarations and Directions including printing of the indexes for volumes containing those publications. The expenditure so involved represents an increase of £572 Os. 1ld. as compared with 1955 (£3,661 17s. 9d.) In the year under review the expenditure incurred on the production of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature amounted to £1,950 3s. 11d. as compared with an expenditure of £1,032 17s. 6d. in 1955, an increase of £917 6s. 5d. The increases in expenditure on printing scientific publications incurred in 1956 are attributable partly to the greater amount of publications issued in that year but are due also in part to the fact that, following the industrial dispute which occurred in the London printing trade in the early part of the year, there was a wage advance in the industry which made it necessary for the Trust’s printers to introduce a substantial increase in their charges. 18. Balance carried down, being Excess of Income over Expenditure in the year 1956: It will be seen from the particulars given in the preceding paragraphs that in 1956 total income amounted to £11,299 11s. 9d., whereas total expenditure, after an appropriate allocation had been made to the “ Official List” and “ Régles” (Publication) Suspense Accounts, amounted only to £8,668 17s. 4d. There was, therefore, an excess of income over expenditure during the year of £2,630 14s. 5d., which was accordingly xiv carried down. This surplus exceeds that obtained in 1955 (£1,780 8s. 9d.) by £850 5s. 8d. In a later part of the present Report (paragraph 29) the vital importance of maintaining and augmenting the present excess of income over expenditure is discussed in relation to the need for providing a financially self-supporting basis for the continuance of the work of the Commission at that time, whenever it may come, when the subsidies in kind at present provided by Mr. Hemming are no longer available. 19. Progress achieved in 1956 in the review of entries made on the “ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ in the period up to the end of 1936: The Trust has pleasure in reporting that during the year 1956 the main survey of Opinions rendered in the period up to the end of 1936 was brought to a successful conclusion. The results of this work were submitted to the International Commission during the year in ten major Reports. These Reports dealt with the problems arising in connection with the entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in relation to the names of genera belonging to the Classes Reptilia, Amphibia and Pisces and to various groups of Invertebrates (other than the Order Decapoda of the Class Crustacea, Reports on which had been submitted to the Commission in the year 1955). The year 1956 witnessed also good progress in the embodiment in Directions of decisions taken by the Commission on Reports submitted to it in connection with various parts of the survey described above. The number of Directions so prepared during 1956 amounted to seventeen. During the year also twenty-three Directions dealing with parts of this survey were published by the Trust. These consisted partly of Directions embodying decisions taken by the Commission during the year but included also a certain number of Directions which had been rendered towards the close of 1955 but which it had not been possible to publish before the end of that year. At 31st December 1956 there still remained a number of Directions to be prepared in regard to aspects of the review on which decisions had been taken by the Commission in the latter months of the year. By that date the only matters connected with the Survey on which decisions were still required from the Commission were concerned either with the determination of the gender to be attributed to some twenty generic names or with the correction of evident errors in the entries made on the Official List in regard to between twenty and thirty generic names. 20. Development of the “ Official List ’’ System during 1956: In the year 1956 there was a substantial advance in the number of entries made on the Official Lists and Official Indexes. In part this was due to the harvesting of the results of the survey of Opinions rendered in the pre-war period but to an important extent also this welcome development was the result of decisions taken by the Commission on new cases during the year. The total number of additions to the Official Lists and Official Indexes made during the year amounted to 1,425, an increase of 564 over the additions (861) made in 1955. Of the additions made in 1956 the Official Lists secured 676 and the Official Indexes 749. The total xV number of entries standing on the Official Lists and Official Indexes at 31st December 1956 amounted to 3638 (Official Lists, 2,299 ; Official Indexes, 1,339). The distribution of these entries as between the component Lists and Indexes is shown in the following table :— Total Number of entries on the “ Official Lists ’’ and “ Official Indexes ’’ at 3ist December 1956 promulgated in “ Opinions ”’ and “ Directions ’’ published by that date Category Official Totals Indexes (by categories) Specific Names oh 366 1,476 Generic Names ete 815 1,853 Family-Group Names 108 233 Titles of Works a 50 76 Totals 21. Decision to publish forthwith the first instalment of the “‘ Official Lists °° and “ Official Indexes ’ in book-form : The virtual completion during the year 1956 of the survey of the entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the period up to the end of 1936 described in paragraph 19 of the present Report brought within measurable distance of achievement the long- projected publication of the Official Lists and Official Indexes in book-form. The Trust realises that some considerable further time may be required before it is possible fully to disentangle the complexities involved in connection with the small number of generic names placed on the Official List in the period up to the end of 1936, the entries regarding which are manifestly incorrect and in need of revision. In the opinion of the Trust the fact that corrections need to be made in respect of the entries relating to these few names ought not to be permitted to delay the publication of the Official Lists and Official Indexes as a whole. Even before the outbreak of war in 1939 when the total number of Opinions published amounted to less than 140 the fact that there existed no single volume giving particulars relating to the entries so far made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology seriously prejudiced the value of the Official List as an instrument for the stabilisation of generic nomenclature, it being a laborious and difficult task for any zoologist to ascertain what generic names in his group had been entered on that List. The period which has since Xvi elapsed has witnessed an enormous development of the Official List system. An Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology has been established as a counter-part of the original Official Inst of valid generic names established by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913. Four further Official Lists have been established for the stabilisation of valid names belonging respectively to the following categories : (a) Specific (including subspecific) names; (b) Family-Group Names; (c) ordinal and Class names; (d) names of Phyla. For each of these groups of names there has been established also a corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names. Finally, there has been established an Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature and a corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. By the establishment of these Official Lists and Official Indexes provision has been made by successive International Congresses of Zoology for the registration of names of every category of name recognised in the taxonomy of animals and of books dealing with taxonomic zoology. Within the last four years large numbers of entries have been made on almost all these Lists and Indexes, the value and importance of which has thereby been greatly enhanced. The decisions regarding these entries are, however, by now spread over nearly 500 documents (Opinions, 440; Directions, 58) and it has in consequence become virtually impossible for any zoologist without a very extensive search to inform himself as to the entries made on the Official Lists and Official Indexes in regard to names or books affecting his day-to-day work. There is thus a risk that, unless early action is taken by the Trust to provide a remedy, the very success achieved may hamper the effective use of the Official Lists and Official Indexes. If considerations of time had permitted, the Trust would have preferred that, when the first instalment of the Official Lists was published, it should have been complete in every particular. In the present circumstances, however, the Trust is of the opinion that the publication of the Official Lists in book-form at the earliest possible moment is of greater importance and urgency than the correction of the small number of incorrect entries which still require attention. The Trust has therefore decided to make a start early in 1957 with the publication of the Official Lists and Official Indexes. Each will be published as first part of a separate work and will be provided with its own alphabetical index. This arrangement has been decided upon in order to make it possible for later instalments of each List and Index to be published with pagination continuous with the earlier instalment and for consolidated alphabetical indexes to be published from time to time. In the case of the first instalment of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the small number of names placed on the List in the period up to the close of 1936 which require correction will be omitted but an appropriate note will be inserted giving particulars of the names concerned and explaining that they have been temporarily omitted in order to permit of a further examination by the International Commission of the issues which require attention. It is a great satisfaction to the Trust that after so long a period of preparation—extending back as far as 1943 when the first preliminary examination of the old Opinions was carried out by Mr. Hemming— the stage has been reached when at length it is possible to publish the Official Xvii Jists in book-form. For quite another reason also the Trust is particularly glad that the long-awaited publication of the Official Lists will take place in 1957, for this will make it possible to place this important work before the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London in July 1958. 22. Expenditure incurred in 1956 on the preparations for the publication of the “ Official Lists ’’ and “ Official Indexes ’’ in book-form: During the year 1956 the sum of £599 15s. 2d. was expended on the preparations in hand for the publication of the Official Lists and Official Indexes in book-form, work on which proceeded steadily throughout the year. At this level expenditure exceeded that in 1955 (£520 3s. 1d.) by approximately £80. As in previous recent years the expenditure incurred was of two types: first, the salary paid to the Research Assistant in immediate charge of the work ; second, a contribution paid by the “ Official List ’’ Suspense Account to the general funds of the Trust in respect of common services provided from those funds to the work carried out in this field during the year. The expenditure incurred under the foregoing heads was defrayed from the funds standing to the credit of the above Suspense Account. 23. Continuation in 1956 of work in connection with the collation and co-ordination of the decisions affecting the text of the “‘ Régles ’’ taken by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) Congresses : During the year 1956 work on the collation and co-ordination of the decisions affecting the text of the Réegles taken by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses which had been begun in 1955 was steadily continued and by the end of the year had been virtually completed. The purpose of the work so undertaken was to provide the basis needed to enable the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London in 1958 to satisfy itself on the question whether, as provided by the decision on this subject taken by the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 98, Decision 190) the document placed before it is a faithful mirror of the decisions taken by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses respectively and thus provides the necessary foundation for any further changes in the Régles which the London Congress may consider necessary or desirable. During the year the Trust received from Professor J. Chester Bradley the draft of the revised English text of the Régles which he had prepared at the request of the Copenhagen Congress. The document so received will be published by the Trust at an early date. 24. Expenditure incurred in 1956 on the collation and co-ordination of the decisions in regard to the text of the “ Régles’’ taken by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses : The expenditure incurred in 1956 on the survey of the decisions affecting the text of the Régles taken by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses described in the preceding paragraph amounted to £397 7s. Od., an wai increase of £159 11s. 8d. over the sum (£237 15s. 4d.) expended on this service in 1955. The rate of expenditure was at substantially the same level as in the previous year, the increase in expenditure actually incurred being attributable to the fact that in 1955 it was not until the month of July that the “ Régles” Survey Section was established by the Trust. The nature of the expenditure incurred in 1956 was similar to that incurred in the previous year, consisting mainly of the salary paid to the Research Assistant in immediate charge of the work, but in part also of a small contribution to the general funds of the Trust in respect of common services provided from those funds to the work carried out by the “ Régles ” Survey Section in the year under review. The whole of the expenditure incurred on this service was met from funds standing to the credit of the “ Régles ” (Publication) Suspense Account. 25. Additional Audit Fee: During the year 1956 the Trust approved an increase of twenty guineas in the fee paid to the firm of Chartered Accountants who carry out the audit of its Accounts. This increase was given retrospective effect so as to cover the year 1955 as well as the current year. The portion of this expenditure attributable to the year 1955 cannot be included in the Income and Expenditure Account for the current year. The amount involved (£21) is therefore shown in the Accounts as an item below the line where it forms one of the items of which account has been taken in calculating the amount of the Income and Expenditure Balance to be shown in the Balance Sheet. 26. Replenishment of the funds of the “ Official List’? and “ Régles (Publication) ’? Suspense Accounts: In December 1956 it was decided to augment the funds of the “ Official List ” and “ Régles”’ (Publication) Suspense Accounts, as it appeared likely that otherwise the resources of the first of these Accounts would be completely exhausted by the end of the year and those of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ (Publication) Suspense Account very nearly so. Accordingly, a sum of £500 was transferred to each of these Accounts from the Income and Expenditure Account. In consequence of these transfers, at the end of the year there were balances of £436 3s. 3d. in the “‘ Official List ’ Suspense Account and of £676 16s. 2d. in the “ Régles” (Publication) Suspense Account. 27. Balance carried down : The Excess of Income over Expenditure in the Income and Expenditure Account for 1956 amounted (as shown in paragraph 18 above) to the sum of £2,630 14s. 5d. The “ Below-the-Line” Items discussed in paragraphs 25 and 26 above amounted to £21 in respect of the supplementary payment made in 1956 in respect of the audit of the Trust’s Accounts in that year and to two sums of £500 each, being amounts transferred to the ‘“ Official List’? and ‘‘ Régles” (Publication) Suspense Accounts respectively. The amount involved in connection with the foregoing Below- the-Line items amounted therefore to £1,021. When account is taken of these items, the net increment in the Income and Expenditure Account Balance during the year (i.e. the Excess of Income over Expenditure in the above Account for the year, less the ‘“‘ Below-the-Line”’ Items) is seen to have xix amounted to the sum of £1,609 14s. 5d. When this sum is added to the amount represented by the Income and Expenditure Account Balance as at 3lst December 1955 (£4,466 19s. 10d.) the amount to be carried to Balance Sheet under this head as at 3lst December 1956 is seen to have amounted to £6,076 14s. 3d. (b) Balance Sheet as at 3ist December 1956 28. The survey of the several items comprised in the Income and Expenditure Account for 1956 having now been completed, it is possible to turn to examine the Balance Sheet of the Trust as at 31st December 1956. First, it will be noted that at that date the Trust’s total Revenue Reserves amounted to £6,610 14s. 2d. These Reserves were made of the following three items: (i) “ Official List’ Suspense Account, £436 3s. 3d.; (ii) Office Equipment Reserve, £97 16s. 8d.; (iii) Income and Expenditure Account, Balance, £6,076 14s. 3d. Other items on this side of the Balance Sheet were : (a) the sum of £676 16s. 2d., being the balance at that time standing to the credit of the ‘‘ Régles”’ (Publication) Suspense Account, and (b) the sum of £167 8s. 9d., in respect of liabilities to sundry creditors. The low level of this latter item is attributable to the Trust’s policy of settling all accounts immediately upon their being received. Attention must be drawn to one item included under the foregoing heading. This in respect of a sum of £36 received from Professor Raymond C. Moore as a donation towards the cost of publishing a paper (on the subject of the nomenclature of discrete fragments of fossils unidentifiable as whole-animals) which had not been sent to the printer by the end of the year. Professor Moore’s paper will be sent to the printer in 1957 in which year the donation kindly given by Professor Moore will appear as an item in the Income and Expenditure Account. The items set out above amount to a total of £7,454 19s. 1d. On the other side of the Balance Sheet the foregoing items were matched by (a) Fixed Assets, entered at cost less depreciation, £166 5s. 5d. and (b) Current Assets, £7,288 13s. 8d. This latter item was made up of two parts, of which the first, amounting to £2,900, represents the estimated value of the amounts due to the Trust in respect of sales of its publications. This sum is nearly three times as great as the corresponding amount (£1,050) which appeared in the Balance Sheet as at 3lst December 1955. Nevertheless, the estimate on which this item is based for the current Balance Sheet has, as in previous years, been prepared on conservative lines. There had moreover been no slackening in the efforts constantly made by the Trust’s Publications Office to secure payment of accounts outstanding from institutional and other subscribers to the Trust’s publications. The large amount of this item may be taken therefore as reflecting an exceptionally high level of sales towards the close of 1956. The second part of the item ‘‘ Current Assets ”’ consisted of a sum of £4,388 13s. 8d., being the balance at the bank and cash in hand at 31st December 1956. PART 2 THE FUTURE OUTLOOK IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEED FOR PLACING THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION ON A SELF-SUPPORTING BASIS 29. The feature of the financial situation disclosed by the accounts for 1956 which must be regarded as the most significant for the future well-being of the Commission as a body is the further increase recorded in the excess of income over expenditure. The Trust attaches great importance to this feature of the Accounts not because it now regards a further increase in its reserves as a matter of cardinal importance and urgency but because it considers it essential that income should be built up to a level sufficient to enable the whole cost of operating the Office of the Commission to be met from current resources. At present that cost is not being so met and in consequence the picture presented by the Accounts is over-encouraging and indeed misleading and will remain so as long as the present arrangements continue under which Mr. Hemming works as Secretary to the Commission on a whole-time basis but without remuneration and as long as the Commission possesses no office premises of its own, depending upon rent-free accommodation provided by Mr. Hemming in his private residence. This is a situation which it is essential should be squarely faced. For in the nature of things Mr. Hemming cannot be expected indefinitely to provide whole-time unpaid service to the Commission and, if the continuance of the work of the Commission is not to be seriously endangered at the time, whenever it may be, when the present arrangement comes to an end, the income of the Trust must be sufficient to meet not only the relatively minor part of the office expenses which it at present bears but also the much more substantial burden represented by the salary which would have to paid to any zoologist engaged to perform on a whole-time salaried basis the duties at present discharged by Mr. Hemming. It must be realised also that, unless in the meantime action had been taken by the Trust, the retirement of Mr. Hemming and the appointment of a salaried successor would necessarily synchronise with the loss by the Commission and the Trust of the office accommodation which it at present occupies. These two events, if occurring simultaneously, would even in the most favourable circumstances inevitably lead at least temporarily to a total stoppage in the work of the Office of the Commission and therefore of the Commission itself, to the dispersal of the experienced staff now employed and to the break-up of the organisation which has been so laboriously built up over a long course of years. Such a development, by putting for the time being a total stop to the issue of publications would in addition involve the Trust in severe financial loss, It is xxi obvious that these are contingencies which must not be allowed to materialise. Clearly, the first step which should be taken by way of insurance is for the Trust to provide the Commission with office accommodation of its own. Second, it is desirable that the Trust should secure the services of a suitable zoologist to act on a whole-time salaried basis in the first instance as Mr. Hemming’s principal zoological assistant. Under this plan the Commission would be insured against the risks which would otherwise at once arise whenever Mr. Hemming might relinquish his present Office as Honorary Secretary to the Commission. For as soon as the first of the steps outlined above had been taken, the Office of the Commission and the Trust would be protected against the risk of being suddenly left without premises, while, when in addition the second of these steps had been taken, the Commission would be assured that the work of its Office could be continued without serious risk of interruption. 30. The measures described above will only be practicable if, during the time when the Commission is still being subsidised in kind, it is possible to build up an income sufficiently large to meet the new charges which, when those subsidies were withdrawn, would have to be shouldered in addition to those already being borne. Already, as the results obtained during the last two years clearly show, the level of annual output achieved is sufficient not only to meet current obligations but also to make a valuable contribution towards the additional annual sum which would need to be provided if the work of the Commission were to be placed on a self-supporting basis. The Trust is of the opinion that it would be possible to obtain the further increment in annual income required by means similar to those which were adopted in building up income to its present level. The results achieved have been secured by a progressive stepping-up in the rate of annual output—of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and of the ensuing Opinions—coupled with the sale of that output at a given price-level. Great as has been the improvement in the speed with which cases are handled in the Office of the Commission, the present rate of inflow of new applications is such that with the existing resources the Office of the Commission is barely able to keep pace with current work and long delays in the handling of cases sometimes still occur. Given the requisite strengthening of the scientific staff of the Office of the Commission, output could certainly be raised to an extent which would secure that all applications were promptly dealt with. Moreover, every increase in output so far achieved has led to a quickening in the rate of inflow of new applications and the Trust does not doubt that this would happen again if a further increase in output were achieved. In other words, the Trust is firmly of the opinion that so great is the importance now attached by specialists to the help which they can obtain from the Commission that, provided that the organisation of the Office of the Commission were such that zoologists could count upon applications being dealt with promptly, a further marked increase in the number of new applications submitted annually could certainly be expected. For these reasons the Trust is confident that the additional income required es to make the Commission a financially self-supporting organisation could be secured by the adoption of measures which would raise still further its annual rate of output. 31. Staffing Arrangements in 1956: During the year 1956 Mrs. N. M. A. Guzelian who in June 1955 had been appointed Administrative Officer in succession to Mrs. S. C. Watkins, M.A., the first holder of that post, found it necessary to relinquish her appointment for family reasons. It was then decided as an experimental measure that the post of Administrative Officer should be abolished, the duties hitherto assigned to that office being distributed among various members of the staff who were thereupon granted direct access to the Secretary. This arrangement, though possessing certain advantages, has not proved altogether satisfactory and the Trust has in mind to reconstitute the equivalent of the post of Administrative Officer. As part of the re-arrangement of duties described above, the post of part-time copy typist was placed on a whole-time basis, the holder of this appointment becoming responsible for registering and filing documents in addition to copy-typing. Miss C. W. Kirton was appointed to this post. The major part of the task of seeing documents through the press formerly performed by the Administrative Officer was assigned to a new post to which Mrs. J. A. White was appointed in April of the year under review. 32. Presentation of the Accounts for the Year 1956 and the Balance Sheet as at 3ist December 1956: With the foregoing explanations the Committee of Management has pleasure in presenting the Accounts for the Year 1956 and the Balance Sheet as at 3lst December 1956. In doing so, the Committee of Management desires to express its thanks to Mr. Francis Hemming who, as in previous years has combined the discharge of the heavy duties of the post of Secretary to the Commission with those of Managing Director and Secretary to the Trust, in which capacity he has exercised his customary close control over all items of expenditure. The Committee of Management desires also to express its warm thanks to all members of the staff of its office at Park Village East, both those engaged upon the work of the Commission and those also concerned with the financial and administrative side of the work of the Trust itself. All concerned have rendered valuable service in their appointed field and by the ready spirit of co-operation displayed have constituted a valuable team which collectively deserves a large part of the praise due for the successful outcome of the work of the year under review. oes At the Publications Office in South Kensington, Mrs. C. Rosner, the Trust’s Publications Officer, has again rendered the most valuable services and has had the satisfaction of seeing during the year a striking upward movement in the sale of publications, for much of which the credit is due to the assiduous efforts made by her in previous years to bring the publications of the Trust to the attention of institutions likely to be interested in the work of the Commission. The Committee of Management is happy once again to have the opportunity of expressing its appreciation of the services rendered by the Trust’s printers, Messrs. Metcalfe & Cooper, Ltd., and in particular by Mr. John Stainton, the member of that firm principally concerned with the work of the Trust. The long established relations between the Trust and its printers has led to a thorough understanding of each other’s problems and has made possible the fruitful association that has been successfully built up. Finally, mention must be made of the valuable services rendered during the year by the Auditors of the Trust’s Accounts, Messrs. Keen & Co., Chartered Accountants. A particular word of thanks is due to Mr. R. W. M. Taylor, the representative of the above firm, who has been in direct charge of the audit of the Trust’s Accounts ever since the transfer of the Headquarters of the Commission from Washington to London. Offices of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41 Queen’s Gate, London, 8.W.7, England. XXiv INTERNATIONAL TRUST Incorporated under the Com Balance S 1955 £ £ Saya 5ce £ 8 Revenue Reserves (per separate accounts)— 536 “ Official List ’ Suspense Account sae re) es es) 98 Office Equipment Reserve au aes ote 97 16 8 4,467 Income and Expenditure Account—Balance ... 6,076 14 3 6,101. ——— ———— 6,610 14 Provision for Cost of Revision of International Code—‘‘ Régles Internationales de la Nomen- clature Zoologique *’— ‘© Régles *’ (Publication) seg aaa Account (per 574 separate account) 676 16 Liabilities— 1,091 Sundry Creditors ... sae Jar wes wes 167 8 £6,766 £7,454 19 We have obtained all the information and explanations which to the best of our knowledge and belief from our examination of those books. We have examined the above Balance Sheet and accompanying Inc our information and according to the explanations given us, the said accounts give the information required Trust’s affairs at 31st December, 1956, and the Income and Expenditure Account gives a true and fair view Fiyspury Crrcus House, BLOMFIELD STREET, Lonpon, E.C.2. 4th March, 1957. ICAL NOMENCLATURE 929 (Limited by Guarantee) mber 1956 1955 £ So -i8), as gig Sere | Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— 112 Book Value at Ist July 1948 a sac Me TS 186 Additions since at cost ae sae Soot. els -T4 2 298 325 11 8 141 Less: Depreciation... sds Bas cee ALB Gis res —_—_—— 166 5 5 Current Assets— 1,050 Amounts due for Publications valued at jiewe,900' 0.0 5,559 Balance at Bank and Cash in Hand .... 1. 4,388 13°. 8 7,288 13 8 (Note—Stock of Publications not valued) Sot at i) Members of the Committee FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN of Management £7,454 19 1 ary for the purposes of our audit. In our opinion proper books of account have been kept, so far as appears penditure Account, which are in agreement with the books of account. In our opinion and to the best of nies Act 1948 in the manner so required, and the Balance Sheet gives a true and fair view of the state of the ‘of Income over Expenditure for the year ended on that date. (Signed) W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants. Income and Expenditure Account 1955 INCOME £ £ £ (ad, 423m To Sales of Publications— 5,692 Opinions and Declarations ee ... 7,235 8 3 1,984 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature wn O40d (9 ET Copenhagen Decisions on Soetepiae Nomen- 46 clature be --- 7,722 ————-_ 10,938 18 5 », Donation 3 10 » Grant from U.N.E.S.C.0. per the Inter- 179 national Union for Biological Sciences... 357 £7,906 £11,299 1 1,780 To Balance brought down 2,630 14 » Balance at 3lst December 1955 brought 3,107 forward of 4,466 19 £4,887 £7,097 1 i “* Official To Transfer from Income and ee 420 Account 500 » Balance at 31st December. "1955 “brought 636 forward sae a 535 18) £1,056 £1,035 18: — To Balance at 31st March 1955 brought for- £98 ward ... cic oe ae fee “ot £97 16 To Transfer from Income and “oT meagea — Account 500. ¢ » Balance at 31st December 1955 brought 812 forward fa aes 574 £812 £1,074 | £ £ 833 624 31 1,488 75 3,662 1,033 ie year ended 3ist December 1956 1955 EXPENDITURE £8. d By Administration Expenses— £ Salaries— 449 Administrative Officers W1by 9:8 384 Others ae 546 15 4 Office Expenses Audit Fee ote 60 Less: Proportion allocated to ** Official List ”’ 100 0 0 Proportion allocated to 15 the Régles ... 30 0. 0 » Depreciation of Office Equipment » Publications— Opinions and Declarations Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature » Balance carried down, being Excess of Income over Expenditure for year ... By Additional Audit Fee, 1955... » Transfer to “ Official List ”’ Suspense Account » Transfer to “ ‘Régles’ (Publication) ’’ Sus- pense Account » Balance carried forward per Balance ‘Sheet . By Expenditure during year— Salaries and Office Expenses Proportion of Administration Expenses »» Balance carried forward per Balance Sheet ... By Balance carried forward per Balance Sheet ... plication) ’? Suspense Account By Expenditure during year— Salaries and Office Expenses Equipment... : Proportion of Administration Expenses : »» Balance carried forward per Balance Sheet ... 1,262 5 1,281 10 52 10 w owe 2,596 5 4,233 18 8 1,950 3 11 £11,299 11 499 15 2 100 0 0 BOle i> 30 0 0 £1,074 3 2 XxVii 6,184 2 2,630 14 21 500 500 6,076 1 £7,097 599 15 436 3 £1,035 18 £97 397 7 676 oS oo ow wo oo Ae PURO BED = 6 JAN 1958 ‘ Ss ‘ as Fiat ern = = ene ae ie VOLUME 13. Part 1 25th January 1957 pp. 1—32 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE son! 9h” = Edited by ORLA) # | FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. 200 00% 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 by voting on applications res in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature * 242—247 , 1934, ibid., Pars 65 : 689 SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION BY DR. ROSS CONCERNING “* DICTYOPLOCA ”’ JORDAN, 1911 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By E. McC. CALLAN (Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South A frica) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1072) (For the application in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl 13 : 80—83) (Letter dated 31st May 1956) I beg to support the application of Dr. E. S. Ross that the Law of Priority be waived in respect of Dictyoploca Krauss of the EMBUDAE in favour of Dictyoploca Jordan of the saruRNIIDAE. A new and more stable name for the Cape emBmpar to take the place of Dictyoploca Krauss seems eminently desirable. This change would make no difference whatever in South African entomologym as the name Dictyoploca Krauss appears never to have used by entomologists in South Africa. 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS (a) TO DESIGNATE A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE FOR THE GENUS “STAPHYLINUS’’ LINNAEUS, 1758, AND (b) TO VALIDATE THE EMENDATION TO “ ERYTHROPTERUS ”’ OF THE SPECIFIC NAME OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES “STAPHYLINUS ERYTROPTERUS” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) By C. E. TOTTENHAM, M.A. (Zoological Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 242) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to prevent the very serious confusion and name-changing which would result from the acceptance as the type species of the genus Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) of the species which is at present the type species under the Rules. The proposal that the Commission should be asked to take action in this sense was first put forward in a paper which I prepared for the Coleoptera Sub-Committee of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature, a body set up by the Royal Entomological Society of London to supervise the preparation of the work entitled The Generic Names of British Insects which was then in process of publication by the Society. The proposal so drawn up was supported by the Coleoptera Sub-Committee, the other members of which were at that time: H. E. Andrews; W. A. F. Balfour-Browne ; K. G. Blair ; M. Cameron. These proposals were embodied by the Sub-Committee in its Third Report which in turn was submitted to, and approved by, the Committee on Generic Nomenclature, by whom it was submitted to the Royal Entomological Society in its Ninth Report. These documents were approved by the Council for transmission to the International Commission and were published as Part 9 of the work referred to above on 30th August 1949 (Gen. Names Brit. Ins. (9) : 343466). Finally, on 22nd December 1949 Mr. N. D. Riley, then Secretary to the Society, transmitted the foregoing publication to the International Commission. Various circumstances prevented until now the preparation of a formal application to the International Commission on this subject. The facts of this case are set out in the following paragraphs. 2. The genus Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 421) was established with nineteen included species but without a designated type species. Of the included species two only enter into the present case, namely : (1) Staphylinus mazillosus Linnaeus, 1758 (:421) ; (2) Staphylinus erytropterus Linnaeus, 1758 (:422). Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Double-Part 2/3. March 1957. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 8. Before entering upon a discussion of the type species of the foregoing genus, there is one preliminary matter which requires to be mentioned. This is the spelling to be used for the specific name of the second of the two nominal species cited above. As there stated, that specific name was spelled “ erytropterus ’’ by Linnaeus in 1758 but it was quickly recognised that this was a mistake for “ erythropterus ”, to which form it was emended by Miiller (O.F.) in 1764 (Fauna Ins. fridrichsdal. : 23). This emendation was accepted by subsequent workers, the name being almost universally spelled in this way. After the adoption of the present Régles by the Berlin Congress in 1901 it is probable that under Article 19 (the Article relating to the emendation of names) the emendation of the defective spelling erytropterus to erythropterus was perfectly valid but under the more rigid provisions substituted for that Article by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 it is no longer so. That Congress recognised, however, that in the interest of stability long-established emendations ought to be protected from change in those cases where under the Rules then adopted they were technically invalid. The means provided by that Congress to secure that end requires several years in order to become effective and is therefore inappropriate in a case such as the present where an immediate decision is required as part of the settlement of some larger question. I recommend therefore that in this, as in certain similar, recent, cases the required relief should be provided by the Commission by the exercise of its Plenary Powers. 4. We may turn to consider the position as regards the type species of the genus Staphylinus Linnaeus. Here we find that historically this matter was determined in 1819 (Entomologist’s useful Compendium : 172) when Samouelle (i) designated Staphylinus erythropterus Linnaeus to be the type species of the genus Siaphylinus Linnaeus, and (ii) established the nominal genus Creophilus Samouelle with Staphylinus mazillosus Linnaeus as type species by original designation. This disposition of these species has been followed by all subsequent authors and represents the practice currently in force. 5. Unfortunately, as is now seen, the decision in the Commission’s Opinion 11 to recognise the Tableau Méthodique annexed to Latreille’s Considerations générales sur Ordre naturel des Animaux composant les Classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes as containing valid selections of type species for the genera there enumerated would have the most disastrous consequences if applied in the present case. For in this work (: 427) Latreille selected Staphylinus mazillosus Linnaeus to be the type species of the genus Staphylinus Linnaeus. Thus under the normal provisions of the Régles (i) the name Staphylinus Linnaeus would need to be transferred to the genus which for nearly 140 years has been known by the name Creophilus Samouelle, 1819, (ii) the name Creophilus Samouelle would disappear as a junior objective synonym of Staphylinus Linnaeus, and (iii) the genus historically known as Staphylinus Linnaeus would need to be known either by the name Dinothenarus 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Thomson, 1858 (as stated by Tottenham, 1939, Gen. Names Brit. Ins. : 444) or Platydracus Thomson, 1858 (as stated by Blackwelder, 1952, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 200 : 312, 357), two names published by Thomson in the same paper. At present each of these names is in use for a subgenus of Staphylinus Linnaeus, distinct from the genus currently treated as the nominate subgenus. Both the genus Staphylinus (as currently understood) and the genus Creophilus are genera of world-wide distribution, and the former is a very large genus upon which there is a considerable volume of literature. It is not necessary to labour the objections to such a violent disturbance of current nomenclatorial practice as that described above. In addition, it may, however, be noted that such a change in the interpretation of the genus Staphylinus Linnaeus would cause serious confusion at the family-group-name level, for the genus Creophilus (i.e. the genus which would become the genus Staphylinus) is at present placed in the sub-tribe xANTHOPY@I which would become the nominate sub-tribe STAPHYLINI, while some other name would have to be found for the sub-tribe known today as sTaPHYLINI. It is to avoid these disastrous develop- ments that I now ask the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and, having done so, to designate under the same Powers the nominal species Staphylinus erythropterus (emend. of erytropterus) Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the foregoing genus. 6. The consequential action required under the “Completeness of Opinions ” Rule is: (1) the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the name Creophilus Samouelle, 1819; (2) the addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name of the type species of the above genus and of Staphylinus Linnaeus; (3) the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology of the under- mentioned Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 ; (4) the addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology of the name STAPHYLINIDAE (correction of sTapHyLinm) Latreille, [1803—1804] (Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 9 : 172) (first published in correct form as STAPHYLINIDAE by Westwood in 1838, Introd. mod. Class. Ins. 1 : 162); and (5) the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology of the name stapHyLinu Latreille, [1803—1804] (an Erroneous Original Spelling for staPHYLINIDAE). Erroneous Subsequent Spellings of ‘‘ Staphylinus’’ Linnaeus, 1758, proposed to be placed on the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ”’ Staphilynus Schaeffer, 1779, Icon. Ins. 3 : index Staphilinus Brahm, 1790, Insektenkalendar f. Samml. u. Oekonomen, Pt. 1: XXVili Nn A ee OP eS a a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 Stapilinus Berkenhout, 1795, Syn. nat. Hist. Brit. (ed. 3) 1 : 318 Stophylinus Zetterstedt (J.W.), 1828, Faun. Ins. lapp., (1) : 45 Staphylinns Perty, 1830, Delectus Anim. artic... : 4 Saphylinus Gistel, 1856, Die Mysterien der europ. Insectenwelt : 10 Stapyhlinus Fairmaire & Laboulbéne, 1856, Faun. ent. frang.1 : 377 Staphylinius Redtenbacher, 1857, Fauna austriac. (ed. 2) : 133 Staplylinus Thomson, 1860, Skand. Col. 2 : 135 Slaphylinus Fairmaire & Germain, 1861, Ann. Soc. ent. France (4) 1 : 431 Staphhylinus Reed, 1874, Anal. Univ. Chile 45 : 353 Staphlinus Rau, 1944, Ent. News 55 : 15 Staphytinus Dauguet, 1946, L’Hntomologiste 2 : 238 7. For the reasons set forth above I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to validate the emendation to erythropterus of the specific name erytropterus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Staphylinus erytropterus ; (b) to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and having done so, to designate the nominal species Staphylinus erythropterus (emend. of erytropterus) Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above: Staphylinus erythropterus (emend. under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above of erytropterus) Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Creophilus Samouelle, 1819 (gender : masculine) (type species, by original designation : Staphylinus mazillosus Linnaeus, 1758) ; 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) erythropterus (emend. under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above of erytropterus) Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Staphylinus erytropterus (specific name of type species of Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) mazillosus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Staphylinus maxillosus (specific name of type species of Creophilus Samouelle, 1819) ; (4) to place the thirteen Erroneous Subsequent Spellings for Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758, specified in paragraph 6 above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— erytropterus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Staphylinus erytropterus (an Original Spelling rejected under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above in favour of the emendation erythropterus) ; (6) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— STAPHYLINIDAE (correction of STAPHYLINIZ) Latreille, [1803—1804] (type genus: Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758) (first published in correct form as STAPHYLINIDAE by Westwood, 1838) ; (7) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— stapHytino’ Latreille, [1803—1804] (type genus: Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758) (an Invalid Original Spelling for staPHYLINIDAE). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE FOR THE GENUS “ ANOPHELES”? MEIGEN, 1818 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By ALAN STONE (Entomology Research Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and KENNETH L. KNIGHT (Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1165) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to prevent the catastrophic confusion which would result from the acceptance as the type species of the genus Anopheles Meigen, 1818, of the species which is the type species under the Rules. The relevant facts are set out below. 2. The genus Anopheles was described by J. W. Meigen in 1818 in his Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten Europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten, Vol. 1, p. 10. It included two nominal species, Culex bifurcatus Linnaeus, 1758, and Anopheles maculipennis “‘ Hoffmgg ’’ 6 : 11, the latter a new species in this publication. The first type selection for the genus was by Curtis in 1828 (Brit. Ent. No. 210) as Culex bifurcatus Linnaeus, 1758. Culex trifurcatus Fabricius and Culex claviger Meigen, 1818 (Klassif. zweifl Insekt. 1(1) : 4) were given as synonyms of Anopheles bifurcatus (Linnaeus). 3. Martini (1922, Hnt. Mitt. 11 : 107, 108) rather clearly demonstrated that Linnaeus was dealing with the male of Culex pipiens when he described C. bifurcatus and this has been generally accepted, so that if we accept Culex bifurcatus Linnaeus as the type species of Anopheles, then Anopheles would fall as a junior synonym of Culex. This is a clear case of misidentification of the type species of a genus, Culex bifurcatus of Meigen, Curtis, and others being the species that is now generally known as Anopheles claviger (Meigen). Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Double-Part 2/3. March 1957. 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. There are three alternatives in deciding the species that should serve as the type of Anopheles. These are the following :— 5. Alternative (a): To accept Culex bifurcatus Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species. This would be disastrous since the name Anopheles would fall and the vast amount of literature in entomology and medicine dealing with this extremely important group of insects would all be catalogued under a nomenclatorially erroneous name and it would probably be impossible to remove the name Anopheles from usage. 6. Alternative (b): To accept Culex claviger Meigen, 1818, as the type species. This is the species which Meigen in 1818 identified as Anopheles bifurcatus (L.). To accept this would follow the principle of accepting what Meigen actually had as the species, subsequently selected as type of the genus, and not what he believed he had. This species has been accepted as the type species by Christophers (1933, Fauna of British India, Diptera 4 : 97) ; Bonne- Wepster (1953, Anopheles Mosquitoes of the Indo-Australian Region : 80) ; Buonomini and Mariani (1953, Riv. Malariol. 32:177); and Senevet and Andarelli (1956, Les Anopheles del’ Afrique du Nord et du bassin Méditerranean : 29), the latter as ‘‘ Serie Anopheles s. ss”’, A. maculipennis being placed in a separate series. The selection of claviger as type species would have the advantage of permitting the retention of the subgenus Maculipennia Buonomini and Mariani 1953 (loc. cit. 32 : 178), which has as its type species Anopheles maculipennis Meigen, 1818, by original designation. For this reason we favor this selection. 7. Alternative (c): To accept Anopheles maculipennis Meigen, 1818, as the type species. This name was, of course, available for type selection but it was not the species first selected by Curtis. We are not certain of the first selection of A. maculipennis Meigen as the type species, but it may have been by Zetterstedt (1850, Diptera Scandinaviae 9 : 3467). This type species has been accepted by a number of workers, including Rondani (1856, Dipterologiae ital. Prodr. 1 : 178) ; Neveu-Lemaire (1902, Mém. Soc. zool. France 15 : 205) ; Blanchard (1905, Les Moustiques : 160); Brunetti (1914, Rec. Indian Mus. 10:55); Howard, Dyar & Knab (1917, Mosquitoes of North and Central America and the West Indies 4:96); Edwards (1932, in Wytsman, Genera Insectorum 194 : 35); Lane (1953, Neotropical Culicidae 1: 157). On the basis of usage this selection might well be favored, but it has not the same zoological species as the one that Curtis considered the type species of Anopheles, and its acceptance would place Maculipennis Buonomini & Mariani in absolute synonymy. Zoologically, the selection of Culex claviger Meigen rather than Anopheles maculipennis Meigen would create very little confusion, since until recently the two species have been placed in the same restricted group of species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 8. The genus Anopheles Meigen is currently treated as the type genus of a family-group taxon within the family cuLicipar. It is believed that the earliest such name is ANOPHELINA which was published as a name of subfamily rank by Theobald in 1901 (Mon. Culic. 1 : 97). 9. For the reasons set forth above we recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers (a) to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Anopheles Meigen, 1818, made prior to the Ruling now asked for, and (b), having done so, to designate Culex claviger Meigen, 1818, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Anopheles Meigen, 1818 (gender: masculine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above: Culex claviger Meigen, 1818) ; (b) Maculipennis Buonomini & Mariani, 1953 (gender: feminine) (type species, by original designation : Anopheles maculipennis Meigen, 1818) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) claviger Meigen, 1818, as published in the combination Culex claviger (specific name of type species of Anopheles Meigen, 1818) ; (b) maculipennis Meigen, 1818, as published in the combination Anopheles maculipennis (specific name of type species of Maculipennis Buonomini & Mariani, 1953) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— ANOPHELINAE (correction of ANOPHELINA) Theobald, 1901 (type genus : Anopheles Meigen, 1818) ; (5) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— ANOPHELINA Theobald, 1901 (an Invalid Original Spelling for ANOPHELINAE). 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR DR. H. W. LEVI’S APPLICATION REGARDING THE GENERIC NAME “THERIDION’’ WALCKENAER, 1805 (CLASS ARACHNIDA) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1008) (For the application submitted see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 27—30) (a) By HARRIET E. FRIZZELL (Bolla, Missouri, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 28th November 1956) I wish to support Dr. Herbert W. Levi’s petition in regard to clarifying the nomenclature of Theridion and Enoplognatha. Dr. Levi’s proposals include :— (a) Suppression of the generic name Phyllonethis Thorell, 1869, with 7’. ovatum as type species. Theridion ovatum (Clerck) has recently been discovered to belong to Hnoplognatha Pavesi, 1880, a well established genus in arachnid literature ; (b) Retention of the original spelling of Theridion Walckenaer. (b) By B. J. KASTON (Teachers College of Connecticut, New Britain, Connecticut, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 28th December 1956) I have just received from Dr. Levi a copy of his proposal regarding the preserva- tion of the generic names Theridon Walckenaer, 1805, and Hnoplognatha Pavesi, 1880. I wish to state that I endorse his recommendations whole-heartedly, and hope that the powers that be will see fit to act favorably upon them. I wish also to state that I do not approve of the change in spelling from Theridion to Theridium, even though my good friend Dr. Bonnet of Toulouse suggests that it should be changed. (¢) By VINCENT D. ROTH (Yuma, Arizona, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 3rd January 1957) I am in support of Dr. Herbert W. Levi’s petition to preserve the current usage of the generic names Theridion and Hnoplognatha. I agree entirely with his recom- mendations as given in his paper in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. In addition, I feel that the original spelling Theridion should be used in preference to the proposed emendation Theridium since the former has been utilized consistently to a greater extent in arachnology. (d) By ALLAN F. ARCHER (Onion University, Jackson, Tennessee, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 3rd January 1957) As an arachnologist I want to indicate herewith my support of the petition to preserve the accustomed usage of the generic names T'heridion Walckenaer, 1805, and Enoplognatha Pavesi, 1880. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 (e) By CLARENCE J. GOODNIGHT (Purdue University, Layfayette, Indiana, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 20th January 1957) I would like to support Dr. Levi’s proposal to preserve the accustomed usage of the generic names Theridion and Enoplognatha. I believe this would cause less confusion than to change them according to strict interpretations of the Law of Priority. (f) By T. H. SAVORY (London) (Letter dated 21st January 1957) This is to say that I support Dr. H. W. Levi's petition to preserve the current use of Theridion and Enoplognatha. (g) By HANS TAMBS-LYCHE (Norway) (Letter dated 22nd January 1957) I fully support the application to designate Theridion ornatum Hahn, 1831, as type species of the genus Theridion. There can, I think, be no doubt that the confusion arising from a normal application of the Régles would be a very serious one, and one that by no means ought to be avoided. As to the suppression of Thorell’s generic name Phyllonethis, I feel that it would be very inconvenient to change the name for a genus containing many species, but on the other hand it ought to be considered that the two cases do not conform. There will in the Phyllonethis/Enoplognatha case be no question of transfer of a well-known name from one genus to another. I therefore doubt if reasons are strong enough for the suspension of the normal application of the Régles in that case. As to the Theridion/Theridium question, I support the usage of the original spelling Theridion, presuming that Dr. Levi is right in stating that the original spelling is to be considered valid under the Copenhagen Decisions. (h) By J. E. HULL (Durham, England) (Letter dated 24th January 1957) With regard to the application concerning the status of the names Theridion and Enoplognatha, I wish to inform you that I am entirely in agreement with all the proposals. (i) By HARALD NEMENZ (Vienna) (Letter dated 25th January 1957) I readily support Dr. Levi’s petition to preserve the current usage of the generic name Theridion and Enoplognatha. Further, I would prefer the spelling Theridion although Theridiwm may be more correct as the former is much more often used and appears also in the recent Katalog by Roewer, the most important compilation of the last years. 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (j) By J. BRANDEGARD (Copenhagen) (Letter dated 28th January 1957) I would appreciate the spelling Theridion because it is the most used spelling, and I support the petition to preserve the current usage of the generic names Theridion and Enoplognatha proposed by Dr. Herbert Levi. (k) By WALTER HACKMAN (Museum Zoologicum Universitatis, Helsinkt) (Letter dated 28th January 1957) Professor Herbert Levi has asked me my opinion regarding his petition for the use of the generic names Theridion and Enoplognatha. I fully support his petition and I am of the opinion that the genus name Theridion should be used in the old wider sense and not for the Enoplognatha species, in spite of the fact that the type species for Theridion must be changed. I prefer the spelling Theridion. The generic name Enoplognatha should be preserved and Theridion ovatum and some allied species transferred to this genus. (l) By A. M. CHICKERING (Albion College, Albion, Michigan, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 28th January 1957) This communication is written in support of Dr. Herbert W. Levi’s petition to preserve the current usage of the generic names Theridion Walckenaer, 1805, and Enoplognatha Pavesi, 1880. Moreover, it would seem to the writer that it would be better to retain the original spelling even though that is not etymologically as desirable as Theridium. (m) By G. H. LOCKET (Harrow, Middlesex) and A. F. MILLIDGE (Coulsdon, Surrey) (Letter dated Ist February 1957) We support the petition to preserve the correct usage of the generic name Theridion and Enoplognatha as set out in the paper by Dr. H. W. Levi and we support the recommendations under paragraph 8 on p. 29 of this paper. We are opposed to the suggestion that the spelling Theridion be changed to Theridium. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 OBJECTION TO DR. H. W. LEVI’S PROPOSALS REGARDING THE NAME “ THERIDION ’’ WALCKENAER, 1805 (CLASS ARACHNIDA) By OTTO KRAUS (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. Main) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1008) (Extract from a letter dated 16th July 1956) Stellungnahme zu dem vorgeschlagenen Verfahren : (1) Der Name Theridion Walckenaer, 1805, soll unter allen Umstanden bei- behalten, die Emendation Theridium Leach, 1824, soll unterdriickt werden. (2) Theridion im alten Sinne ist eine sehr artenreiche Gattung (mehrere hundert Arten). Nachdem bereits friihere Autoren kleinere Gruppen von diesem Komplex generisch abgetrennt hatten, wurde vor allem durch Archer (1947, 1950) die Aufteilung weiter vorwarts getrieben, der weitere Gattungsnamen (z.B. Allotheridion, Parasteatoda und andere) einfiihrte. Regelgemiéss ist hierbei der alte Name Theridion Walckenaer, 1805 (s. str.) auf diejenige Gruppe zu beziehen, bei der die genotypische Art (Araneus redimitus Clerck, 1757) verblieben ist. Archer ist auch durchaus korrekt in diesem Sinne verfahren (1950 : 23). (3) Die Gattung Theridion Walckenaer im strengen Sinn enthalt hierdurch nur noch wenige Arten. Dies ist jedoch nach unserer Ansicht kein Grund, dem Namen durch Veranderung des Genotypus einen anderen Sinn zu geben und ihn so fiir den bisherigen “‘ Theridion ’’-Komplex zu erhalten, dessen Aufteilung im Gange ist. Wir erinnern in diesem Zusammenhang an ahnliche Verhaltnisse bei Gattungs- namen wie Helix oder Mus. (4) Enoplognatha Pavesi 1880a ist nach Archer (1950 : 23) jiingeres, subjektives Synonym von Theridion (s. str.). Wir halten den Namen Hnoplognatha bei weitem nicht fiir so wichtig und bekannt, als dass zu seiner Erhaltung eine Suspension der Regeln gerechtfertigt ware. POSTSCRIPT (Dated 3lst January 1957) : Abschliessend kahn ich Ihnen noch mitteilen, dass Herr Prof. Dr. C. Fr. Roewer (Bremen) mich ermachtigt, hier Ihnen mitzuteilen, dass er meine Objections Wort fiir Wort unterstiitzt. Prof. Roewer ist Ihnen sicher als einer der fiihrenden Arachnologen bekannt. 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAME “ THERIDION ’? WALCKENAER, 1805 (CLASS ARACHNIDA) AND COUNTER-PROPOSALS ON QUESTIONS INVOLVED THEREIN By PIERRE BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1008) (Extract from a letter dated 28th January 1957) Accord sur le maintien des genres ‘‘ Theridium ”’ et “‘ Enoplognatha ”’ En ce qui concerne le fond du probléme, le maintien des genres Theridium et Enoplognatha, je suis entiérement de l’avis de H. W. Levi, dans le sens méme ow il l’a expliqué. D’ailleurs mon collégue américain m’avout écrit 4 ce sujet-la, en juillet 1955 et je lui avais donné mon accord pour qu’il présente a la Commission intern. de Nomenclature sa proposition en vue du maintien de ces deux genres. Mais il a introduit deux faits nouveaux contre lesquels je m’éléve avec la plus grande énergie. Le nouveau type du genre “ Theridium ’’ est “‘ pictum ”’ (1) Nom de l’espéce-type du genre Theridium. Nous avions convenu avec Mr. Levi que cette espéce-type serait Theridium pictum, nommé pour la 1¢re fois par Walckenaer en 1802 sous le nom d’Aranea picta. Dés 1805, Walckenaer lui-méme a placé son Aranea picta dans le genre Theridium et la nommé Theridion pictum en 1805, 1841 et 1847. Par la suite, cette espéce a été désignée, jusqu’en 1939, sous ce terme, 211 fois : 103 Theridion pictum, 95 Theridium pictum, 13 Steatoda picta avec un seul synonyme, T'heridion ornatum Hahn 1831, qui n’est cité qu’une seule fois par cet auteur. Tl est exact qu'il y a une autre Aranea picta décrite en 1789 par Razoumowsky, qui, elle ausi, n’a jamais été nommée qu’une seule fois, lors de sa description par son auteur et que Thorell, en 1873, p. 545, a mis en synonymie d’Epeira patagiata (= Araneus ocellatus (P.). Side 1802 4 1805, il y a en homony- mie entre ces deux Aranea picta, nul ne s’en est apercu, il n’y a jamais en de confusion entre les deux espéces et on peut dire que, pratiquement, cette homonymie n’a jamais existé. Aussi, je trouve absurde (je dis bien absurde) que l’on vienne aujourd’hui changer le nom de l’espéce Theridium pictum (nommé 211 fois dans ce terme spécifique) sous le prétexte de cette homonymie rétrospective, et remplacer ce Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97 nom bien connu, par un terme qui n’a jamais été employé jusqu’ici. Faire cela n’a aucune utilité, ne présente que des inconvénients, et ce n’est véritablement pas sérieux ! J’ai traité de cette question de ’homonymie rétrospective dans |’introduction de “ Bibliographia Araneorum ”’, p. 19, dont je vous ai envoyé un separatum. Il faudra au prochain Congrés rédiger une régle dans ce sens, pour s opposer & ce genre de changement et sans que l’on ait chaque fois 4 soumettre 4 la Commission de Nomenclature, les nombreux cas qui peuvent se présenter, comme celui-ci. Je vous ferai d’ailleurs cette proposition dans quelque temps. En conséquence, je m’oppose au changement de Theridium pictum en Theridium ornatum et je maintiens que le nouveau type du genre T'heridium est pictum (et non ornatum). Il faut écrire “‘ Theridium ”’ (2) Graphie du nom de genre Theriduim. J’avais mis en garde Mr. Herbert W. Levi contre la graphie Theridion ; je regrette qu'il n’en ait pas tenu compte et qu'il n’ait pas signalé dans son article mon opposition 4 cette graphie et les raisons que je lui donnais. En effet, si Theridion a pour lui d’étre la graphie originelle (Walckenaer, 1805), cette graphie est contraire au principe de latinisation admis par les Régles intern. de Nomenclature (Appendice, paragraphe F) et n’oublions pas que les noms scientifiques des animaux sont des noms latins ou latinisés (Article 3). La disinence ion doit donc se latiniser en ium. II s’agit 1a d’ailleurs d’une mesure générale ; en aranéologie, de la méme facgon que nous écrivons Zodarium, Chieracanthium, Myrmecium, etc., nous devons écrire aussi Theridium. I] n’est pas possible, en Nomenclature d’admettre deux poids et deux mesures ! Il vaut remarquer aussi que la désinence latine on (qui peut aussi exister : Neon, Sason, Saperdon) est du genre masculin. Quand un genre est du neutre (comme Theridium, Zodarium, etc.) il doit obligatoirement se terminer par um. D/ailleurs, 4 ’heure actuelle, contrairement 4 ce que dit H. W. Levi, il ya plus d’auteurs qui écrivent Theridium que Theridion. Si, jusqu’a nos jours, les auteurs de langue anglaise ou francaise ont surtout graphié Theridion, tous les auteurs de l’école allemande ont employé Theridiuwm (Scandinavie, Europe centrale, Italie, Balkans, Russie, et cela malgré l’influence considérable de notre grand Simon). Et lorsqu’ un auteur comme Thorell, qui était un savant helleniste et latiniste, a décidé que la graphie correcte était Theridium, on ne doit plus aller contre sa décision, 4 moins de donner une explication gram- maticale pour démontrer qu’il s’est troupé. Non, Theridion présente une faute de translittération et doit étre change en Theridium, suivant le libellé de l’article 19 qui prévoit que “ lorthographe originelle d’un nom doit étre rectifiée s’il présente une faute de transcription, Vorthographe ou d’impression ”’. 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature USE OF THE COMMISSION’S PLENARY POWERS INVOLVED IN THE COUNTER-PROPOSALS ON TWO POINTS INVOLVED IN DR. HERBERT W. LEVI’S APPLICATION REGARDING THE GENERIC NAME “THERIDION ’? WALCKENAER, 1805 (CLASS ARACHNIDA) SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR PIERRE BONNET By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1008) In the letter dated 28th January 1957, reproduced on pages 96 to 97 of the present Part of the Bulletin, Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse), while supporting the general purpose of the application relating to the generic name Theridion Walckenaer, 1805 (Class Arachnida) submitted by Dr. Herbert W. Levi (University of Wisconsin) (1956, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 12 : 27—30), puts forward counter-proposals on the two following points as to which he advocates :— (a) The acceptance of the emendation Theridiwm in place of the Original Spelling Theridion Walckenaer, 1805 ; (b) The acceptance, as the specific name for the species recommended by Dr. Levi to be designated as the type species of the genus Theridion Walckenaer, 1805, of the specific name picta Walckenaer, 1802, as published in the combination Aranea picta, notwithstanding the fact that that name is a junior homonym of the specific name picta Razoumowsky, 1789, as published in the combination Aranea picta. 2. Attention is here drawn to the fact that the acceptance by the Inter- national Commission of either of the foregoing proposals would involve the use of its Plenary Powers. Accordingly, Public Notice of the possible use of the above Powers for the foregoing purposes is being given forthwith in the prescribed manner. The Notice so required to be given in the present serial will be found on page 34 of the present part. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 COMMENTS ON THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE SPECIFIC NAME ‘“VENULOSA’’, LAURENTI, 1768 AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “HYLA VENULOSA’’. (AS MODIFIED BY ROBERT MERTENS AND HOBART M. SMITH) (CLASS AMPHIBIA) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 771) (For the proposals in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 287, 307—308) (Enclosure to letter dated 11th January, 1957) (a) By WILLIAM E. DUELLMAN (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.) Mertens and Smith have supported my proposals dealing with the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress certain specific names and one generic name of Neotropical Hylidae, except for the suppression of the specific name venulosa Laurenti. Each stated that the name venwlosa is so well known and has been so widely used that it should not be suppressed. The above authors have proposed that the Commission use its Plenary Powers to link the specific name venulosa Laurenti with the specific name zonata Spix, making the name zonata Spix a junior objective synonym of venulosa Laurenti. Mertens and Smith believe zonata Spix to be the least known of the other species concerned. Their proposal may be nomenclaturally acceptable, but I believe it to be both nomenclaturally and biologically impractical for the reasons given below. 2. The name venulosa Laurenti is well known and has been widely used only as a name, not as a specific name in reference to any known population of hylid frogs. The name venulosa has been applied to a group of hylid frogs now known to be a generic assemblage of seven species. The literature references are, for the most part, concerned with this combination of seven species. Consequently, the name has been widely used, but not in reference to some given species of frog, and the fact that it has been widely used can hardly be used in support of the proposals of Mertens and Smith that would link the name with a given population of frogs. 3. There is no biological or nomenclatural basis for linking the name venulosa Laurenti with the name zonata Spix. The name zonata Spix is based upon a specimen of hylid frog from the Upper Amazon Basin in Brazil and is applicable to a population of frogs inhabiting the Amazon Basin. The name venulosa Laurenti is based upon a plate in Seba that is unidentifiable with any known hylid frog. Each of the seven species in this assemblage, now known as the genus Phrynohyas, is well defined with a definite range and a type locality that is known to be exact or approximate. Therefore, there is no just reason for using the name venulosa for the population now called zonata, nor is there any just reason for applying the name venulosa to any of the other populations. 4. There is no evidence for the fact that the Hyla venulosa of Laurenti originated from South America, possibly not even the western hemisphere. Wholesale res- triction of type localities has served no practical purpose, and in many cases these 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature restrictions are unwarranted to the extent that the type locality is not within the natural range of the species or subspecies. Such unmerited restriction of type localities, as would be involved in the case of the name venulosa Laurenti, can only lead to confusion, not only as regards the nomenclature, but as regards the biology of the species. They should be discouraged by the Commission. 5. The name zonata Spix is the type species of the genus Phrynohyas Fitzinger. The name venulosa Laurenti is the type species of the genus Acrodytes Fitzinger. (Both of these genera were proposed on the same page as subgenera of the genus Phrynohyas, also proposed by Fitzinger on the same page. The genus and sub- genus Phrynohyas have line priority over Acrodytes.) The use of the Plenary Powers to link the name venulosa Laurenti to the name zonata Spix, thereby reducing zonata to a junior objective synonym of venulosa, would place the generic name Phrynohyas as a synonym of Acrodytes. Since neither generic name was accompanied by a description, but only a named type species, the characteristics of the genus rest upon the description of the type species. Phrynohyas is based upon a well- described and figured specimen, whereas Acrodytes is based upon the non- informative description of Laurenti, which, in turn is based upon a weird plate in Seba. The linking of the name venulosa Laurenti with the name zonata Spix would thereby bring about great confusion of the genera and synonymize the one genus that is truly applicable. 6. I believe that the principles of nomina conservanda, although applicable, should not be exercised in the present case, for the results will be more confusing than the present state of affairs. On the basis of the reasons given above I cannot agree with the proposals submitted by Mertens and Smith. I feel that the only way to correct the existing state of confusion is for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name venulosa Laurenti. 7. Few workers have become involved with this nomenclatural problem ; expressions of the confusion may be found in Cochran (1955: 55) and Taylor (1944 : 63—64 and 67, and 1952 : 799—800). The generic and specific status has been discussed at length in the systematic revision of the group by Duellman (1956 : 57—58 and 36—37). References Cochran, Doris M., 1955. ‘‘ Frogs of Southeastern Brazil”? Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 206 : 1—423 Duellman, William E., 1956. “‘ The Frogs of the Hylid Genus Phrynohyas Fitzinger, 1843’ Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 96 : 1—47 Taylor, Edward H., 1944. ‘“‘ The Hylid Genus Acrodytes with Comments on Mexican Forms” Kans. Univ. Sci. Bull. 30(1) (No. 6) : 683—68 Taylor, Edward H., 1952. ‘‘ A Review of the Frogs and Toads of Costa Rica ” Kans. Univ. Sci. Bull. 35(5) : 577—942 ' ea Me o Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 (b) By KARL P. SCHMIDT (Chicago Natural History Museum, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 15th January 1957) It is very gratifying to learn that Dr. Mertens has an alternative proposal to that of Duellman with respect to Hyla venulosa, and that it is supported by my valued colleagues, Hobart Smith and Arthur Loveridge. I strongly support Dr. Mertens’ plan for the preservation and fixation of this name. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL BY DONALD BAIRD ON THE GENERIC NAMES ‘‘ ANCHISAURIPUS ’’ LULL, 1904 (CLASS REPTILIA : THEROPODA [ICHNITES)) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1081) (For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 221—224) (a) By D. M. S. WATSON (Unwersity College, London) (Letter dated 3rd December 1956) I have read the article in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by Donald Baird, dealing with the generic name Anchisauripus Lull, and suppression of the generic name Otowphepus Cushman, and the specific name ascribed to it. I entirely agree that the procedure suggested in paragraph 8 of this paper should be adopted. (b) By C. C. YOUNG (Academia Sinioa, Peking, China) (Letter dated 4th January 1957) I have pleasure in agreeing about the protection of the generic name Anchisauripus Lull, 1904, by suppressing the generic name Otowphepus Cushman, 1904; and the suppression of the specific name magnificus Cushman, 1904, published in combination with the latter generic name (Class Reptilia : Theropoda [Ichnites]). 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) By JOSEPH T. GREGORY (Yale University, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 30th January 1957) I heartily support the petition of Donald Baird to have the Commission use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Otowphepus Cushman, 1904, and the specific name magnificus Cushman, 1904, as published in the combination Otowphepus magnificus. Certainly stability of nomenclature will be served by suppressing these names, based upon indistinct and incorrectly interpreted remains, in favor of the more generally used term Achisauripus. However, the proposed action of the Commission mentioned in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 223, par. 8(2) of said application, namely to place the generic name Anchisauripus Lull, 1904, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is scarcely warranted at present. Anchisauripus could easily be a synonym of Brontozoum Hitchcock, 1847. The problem is complicated by Hitchcock’s failure to designate types of his genera, and various interpretations are possible. Dr. Baird is revising these footprints and propses to resolve this problem in favor of Anchisauripus, by designating Ornithichnites giganteum as type species of Brontozoum, thus making that genus a junior synonym of Hubrontes (Hitchcock 1845). Although I am sympathetic with his viewpoint, one could make an equally good case for retaining Brontozowm. It was used and recognized for many years before Lull proposed Anchisaurvpus. As it is not necessary to officially conserve Anchisauripus in order to suppress the troublesome name Otouphepus, would it not be better to await Dr. Baird’s article and fully consider his arguments before taking final action on Anchisauripus ? SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION BY R. P. TRIPP & F. W. WHITTARD ON ‘“ ENCRINURUS’’ EMMRICH, 1844, AND “ ODONTOCHILE ”’ HAWLE & CORDA, 1847 (CLASS TRILOBITA) (a) By CHRISTIAN POULSEN (Oniversitetets Mineralogisk-Geologiske Institut, Denmark) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1059) (For the application in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 259—263) (Letter dated 7th February 1957) The purpose of this letter is to inform the International Commission that I support the application of Dr. R. P. Tripp and Dr. F. W. Whittard re: Encrinurus « 0 Aes 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103 Emmrich, 1844, and Odontochile Hawle & Corda, 1847, etc., and that I recommend the actions proposed in their application. (b) By C. J. STUBBLEFIELD (Geological Survey and Museum, London) (Letter dated 5th February 1957) I wholeheartedly support the proposal that the well-known generic name Encrinurus be validated as based upon Entomostracites punctatus Wahlenberg, since this usage is in accord with current practice among trilobite workers. I also support the proposal that the generic name Odontochile should be validated as based upon Asaphus hausmanni Brongniart. I consider, however, that the genus Odontochile should be attributed to Corda in Hawle and Corda, rather than to Hawle and Corda unless the Commission chooses to rule that the Prodrom einer Monographie der b6hmischen Trilobiten published as a separate work in Prague in 1847 is a joint work despite Hawle’s subsequent disclaimer of co-authorship. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL BY W. J. REES TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ AURELIA ”’ LAMARCK, 1816 (CLASS SCYPHOZOA) By F. S. RUSSELL (Director, Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1082) (For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 26—28) (Letter dated 5th March 1957) I have received from Dr. W. J. Rees a reprint of his proposal for the validation of the generic name Aurelia Lamarck. I have made a special study of medusae now for a great many years, and I should like to support very strongly Dr. Rees’s proposal that the name Aurellia Péron & Lesueur should be suppressed, with the resulting alterations of the spelling of the family name. 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS BY P. C0. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY REGARDING THE FOLLOWING GENERIC NAMES IN THE CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER OSTRACODA: ‘“ LIMNOCYTHERE ” BRADY, 1868 ; ““CANDONA ”’ BAIRD, [1846] ; “‘ CONCHOECIA ’”’ DANA, 1849 By GERD HARTMANN (Museum der Stadt, Osnabriick) (Commission References : Z.N.(S.) 1071 ; Z.N.(S.) 1022 ; Z.N.(S.) 1023) (For the proposals here referred to see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 ; 159—160 ; 206—212 ; 213—220) (Letter dated 14th February 1957) (Communicated by Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley) With regard to your papers on Limnocythere, Candona and Conchoecia it is really lucky that you have reached such good conclusions in these cases. I think it is best to stabilise the nomenclature of these genera in taking the usual form of the names. Limnocythere: The usual form is Limnocythere. I agree absolutely with you. Candona: Candona and Herpetocypris are usual forms of writing. I agree with you and thank you very much for trying to clear the position and validity of Candona. It is very good too to know about the validity of Typholcypris. Nevertheless I do not think that a distinction between Candona and Typhlocypris is necessary. Conchoecita: In my opinion there is no difference between HALOCYPRIDIDAE and CONCHOECIIDAE. One should use the former name (HALOCYPRODIDAE). * Opinions ’’ Recently Published Attention is drawn to the publication since the appearance of the last Part of the present serial of seventeen ‘‘ Opinions ’”’ (‘‘ Opinions *? 441—457) and one ** Direction ’’ (‘ Direction ’’ 59). Of these four (“‘ Ops.’’ 445, 447, 456 and “‘ Direction ’’ 59) are concerned with the status of individual books, the remainder dealing with individual names. The distribution of the latter by Classes is as follows : (1) Class Insecta: Diptera (“‘ Ops.’? 441, 442) ; Hemiptera (“ Op.’’ 446); Lepidoptera (‘‘ Op.’? 450); (2) Class Chilopoda (* Op.”’ 454) ; (3) Class Bryozoa (‘‘ Op.’’ 448) ; (4) Class Brachiopoda (“ Op.”’ 449); (5) Class Amphibia (‘‘ Op.’? 453); (6) Class Reptilia (‘‘ Op.’’ 455) ; (7) Class Aves (“‘ Ops.’ 444, 448, 457) ; (8) Class Mammalia (“ Ops.’’ 451, 452). =e CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) New Applications Page Martini (F.H .W.), 1767, Kurze Abhandlung von den Conchylien, proposed rejection of. Francis Hemming SE a 55 35 The Viviparus/Paludina complex (Class Gastropoda) : (a) Proposed acceptance of Viviparus Montfort, 1810, and of VIVIPARIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1847. A. E. Ellis Li “3 38 (b) Proposed interpretation of Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, by reference to Watson’s (1955) lectotype. L. Forcart .. Ay (c) Counter-proposal for interpretation of the above nominal Species on the basis of Miiller OOP )S 17742 OR: Boettger 50 (d) Watson’s ( 1955) lectotype for Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758 : summary by H. Watson of paper prepared in 1955 53 (e) Proposed rejection of Viviparus Montfort, 1810, in favou of Paludina Férussac, 1812. J. L. Baily, Jn. © .: ae 67 Proposed acceptance of Mississippiensis as the specific name for the American Alligator : application by J. A. Oliver and Report by Secretary 73 Proposed validation of the family-group names MUNTIACINAR and ODOBAENIDAE for the Barking Deer and the Walrus respectively. T. C. 8. Morrison-Scott .. = A, al Me Ms 76 Proposed validation of Dictyoploca Jordan, 1911 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) by suppression of Dictyoploca Krauss, 1911 (Class Insecta, Order Embioptera). E. S. Ross te My 80 Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758, proposed designation of Staphylinus erythropterus (emend. of erytropterus) Linnaeus, 1758, as type species (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). C. E. Tottenham 84 Anopheles Meigen, 1818, proposed designation of type species for, in harmony with accustomed usage (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). A. Stone and K. L. Knight 89 “Anchisauripus Lull, 1904 (Class Jacks —_? iim inside back wrapper) - Comments on Alieations ards (H.), 1840 Class Trilobita b Boo pela Dictyoploca iat: 1911 (Class eee oe Order Lepidoptera) (proposal by E. S. Ross) : support by E. McC. Callan... Theridion Large et 1805 (Class Arachnida) : : (a) pay sae ek Ay submitted by H. W. Levi received 72 E. Frizzell ; (h) B. J. Kaston; (iii) © arriet fom () Ha (iv) A. F. Archer ; (v 6. J. Goodni eS win ae oi: iy He Ne (vii) ae ae che ; (viii) J. J. Bra a xi) W. ee (xii) A cM hikes (xiii it. Locket and / _F. Mil ie a2 rf (b) Objection by O. Kraus hos lag a (ec) Counter-proposal by P. Bonnet so ie ite (a) Note on extent to which use of the Plenary ideas: involved in P. ania counter-proposal .. Hyla venulosa canta 1768 Class Am hibia) lepppss! oe E. Duellman) : : : oy, ® &8&8 (a) a a We as Ac soioe to Mertens/Smith conn \, | (b) Sapp F MertensSmith “sont groposl K P | y D. Baird) : Ge ors ‘Spt ( e°Youn “ () ‘ wie Encri ros us fs ean 1844, and te Carats: re Class Trilobita tta support . (a) © Poulsen > (2) 9, Stubblefield. Aurelia Lamarck, 1816 Cas Syphon irons byW. -s Ree) support by F. S. Russell sae a Brady, 1868 ; news Baird, [1846]; Conchoecia 1849 (Gi Crustacea, apr Ostracoda) (proposals iy P. Pe Sylvester-Bradley) : Prenport yy G. Hartmann - Printed in England by Meichire & Coormn Luarab} 10-24 Serution Si, Leadon GB 101 101 103 103 104 { ze LONDON: oe | _ in kf tra se * Bei all ial ot. ie shacpstiad Gute, 0ologiea 1, pyre pan rag eel lication 0 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 0 es at eee Price One Pound vi Lights ered) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMaraL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) 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) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Caprera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herte (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BraDLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) ( President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulanz, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanx6 (Mezdgazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Srowu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SytvesTer-BrapDLey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hotravis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Mituer (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) _ Dr, Ferdinand Prantu (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 954) Professor Dr. William Kitunett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitét, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F, 8. Bopenarmer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TorronesE (Museo di Storia Naturale “ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) e at 7 >. l/s» 10° fi ¥ BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 13, Part 4 (pp. 105—136) 29th March 1957 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 ”’ 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 Part (Vol. 13, Part 4) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing, and in duplicate, 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 Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases Notice is hereby given that the possible use by the International Commis- sion 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 cases :-— (1) Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, type species of Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, clarification of interpretation of (Class Mammalia) (Z.N.(S.) 947) ; (2) Toxorhynchites Theobald, July 1901, validation of (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (Z.N.(S.) 1166) ; 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (3) truncatula (Bulla) Bruguiére, [1792], interpretation of and wmbilicata (Bulla) Montagu, 1803, validation of (Class Gastropoda) (Z.N.(S.) 381). 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. 3. 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 serial publications Nature and Science. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpvon, N.W.1, England. 29th March 1957. eee FS - Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DETERMINE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES ““ VESPERTILIO MURINUS ”’ LINNAEUS, 1758, TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS ‘“‘VESPERTILIO’’ LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS MAMMALIA) (PROPOSED CLARIFICATION OF A RULING GIVEN IN “ OPINION ”’ 91) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S) 947) The object of the present application is to set out certain difficulties which have arisen in connection with the generic name Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia), a name which was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 91 (1926, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 4) : 1—2), and to seek to overcome those difficulties by placing before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature proposals based upon the advice of specialists who have been kind enough to assist in the preliminary consideration of the problems raised in the present case. 2. The present problem was first brought to the attention of the Office of the International Commission when in 1955 steps were being taken in compliance with a General Directive issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (a) the specific name of the type species of every genus, the name of which had up till that time been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology where that name was the oldest available name for the species in question, and (b) in other cases whatever specific name was currently regarded as the oldest name available for that species. At this stage Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski drew attention to a paper in which Dr. Olof Ryberg, a well-known specialist in the bats, had expressed the view that the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, the specific name of the type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, was a nomen dubium, the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus being indeterminable. In these circumstances it was clearly not possible at that time to proceed with the proposal that the foregoing specific name should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Accordingly, on 19th April 1955 in my capacity as Secretary to Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 4. March 1957. 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the Commission I executed a Minute withdrawing the proposal which had been submitted in this matter in order to permit of the study of the issues involved.* 3. As a first step investigations were undertaken by the Office of the Commission for the purpose of determining the factual background of the present problem. This investigation showed that, while some specialists identify the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus with the later established nominal species Vespertilio discolor (Natterer MS) Kuhl, 1817, and apply the name murinus Linnaeus to that species, other specialists reject the name Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus as a nomen dubium and use the name discolor Kuhl (which it is agreed represents a species which can be identified with certainty). 4. The following information collected in the Office of the Commission is relevant to the consideration of the foregoing question :— (a) The nominal species Vespertilio murinus, with the interpretation of which the present paper is concerned, was established by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 32). (b) In [1775] Schreber (Die Sdughthiere 1 : 165, pl. 11) established another nominal species to which he also gave the name Vespertilio murinus. This name is invalid as it is a junior primary homonym of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758. The identity of the species so named by Schreber is not in doubt and that species is the type species of the genus Myotis Kaup, 1829. (c) In 1817 (“ Die dtsch. Fledermduse”’:43) Kuhl published with an ‘indication’ the name Vespertilio discolor previously proposed by a The text of the Minute here referred to has been reproduced in paragraph 4 of Direction 22 (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(C) : 179—200), the Direction embodying the decisions taken by the Commission when complying so far as concerns the names of mammals, with the General Directive referred to above. + This name is commonly attributed either to “‘ Natterer” or to “ Natterer in Kuhl” and treated as having been published in 1819 in the Annalen der Wetterauischen Gesellschaft fiir die gesammte Naturkunde. The consultations with specialists carried out in the course of the preparation of the present paper have, however, shown (a) that Kuhl was alone responsible for the publication of this name, (b) that it was published separately in 1817 in Kuhl’s “ Die deutschen Fledermduse”’ prior to the publication of that paper in the Annalen referred to above in 1818— 1819. For full particulars see Appendix 1 to the present paper. [In the historical account given in the above paragraph the name Vespertilio discolor is cited as having been published by Natterer when it was so attributed by the authors under discussion.] + For a note on certain difficulties arising in connection with this name see Appendix 2. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 Natterer in manuscript.* As shown in (d) and (e) below, the species so named was identified by later authors with Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758. In the original description of discolor it is stated that this species only occurs in the southern part of “our area” [i.e., Germany]. Kuhl added that he had not found this species either in central or northern Germany or in Holland. (d) In 1847 (Skand. Faun., Daggdjuren : 17—20) Nilsson discussed the interpretation of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus. He identified this with Vespertilio discolor Natterert and reinstated the name murinus Linnaeus for the species in question. At the same time he rightly rejected the invalid name Vespertilio murinus Schreber (see (b) above) for the type species of Myotis Kaup, using for the latter species the name Vespertilio myotis Bechstein, 1801. (e) In 1897 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 20 : 379—383) Miller (G.S.) discussed the interpretation of the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus. After drawing attention to the opposite view taken by Blasius (1857) and Lilljeborg (1874), Miller concluded that, despite the inconvenience involved there was no valid reason for rejecting the action of Nilsson (1847) (see (d) above) in identifying the foregoing species with Vespertilio discolor Natterer. An extract from Miller’s paper is attached to the present note as Section A of Appendix 3. In 1912 (Cat. Mamm. w. Europe Coll. Brit. Mus. : 238) Miller made the same identification without, however, making any further comment on it. (f) In 1926 the International Commission, when placing the name Vespertilio Linnaeus on the Official List, accepted Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus without comment as the type species of the genus so named. The proposals on which that Opinion was based had been submitted by Dr. Karl Apstein of Berlin and it was stated in the Opinion that those proposals had been studied by Miller who had reported that the names included in that application were valid and therefore that the proposals in question could be properly accepted. It is clear that the question of the interpretation of the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus was not expressly placed before the Commission on that occasion and that it cannot be held that by the action taken in the foregoing Opinion the Commission expressed any view on this subject. * See the Footnote to paragraph 3 above and also the full discussion given in Appendix 1. t See Footnote to paragraph 3 above. t See Appendix 2. 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (g) In 1947 Olof Ryberg (Bats and Bat Parasites : 79—80) strongly attacked the identification of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus with Vespertilio discolor Natterer,* stating that Nilsson, by whom this identification was first made (see (d) above), was fully aware that the Linnean species could not be safely identified in this way. He concluded that the name murinus Linnaeus must be regarded as a nomen dubium. He added that “it would be a significant gain and a release from a heavy burden for the chiropterologist if this harmful name which cannot be referred to a definite species were avoided in the future ”’. An extract from Ryberg’s paper is attached to the present note as Section B of Appendix 3. (h) In 1951 (Checklist pal. ind. Mamm. : 152) Ellerman & Morrison-Scott accepted the name murinus Linnaeus for the Parti-coloured Bat, citing discolor Natterer* (attributed to Kuhl) as a synonym. 5. In order to obtain the necessary taxonomic information on which to base a proposal for the consideration of the International Commission, a questionnaire asking for advice on the action which it was desirable should be taken by the Commission in this case was prepared for submission to a number of specialists who, it was thought, would be interested in the issues involved and would be in a position to furnish advice on those issues. The specialists whom it was decided so to consult were either known to be specialists in the group concerned or, by reason of working at National Natural History Museums, were in a position to obtain and furnish to the Office of the Commission the views of specialists in their respective museums or of other representative specialists in their own countries. The questions on which the advice of specialists were so sought, which appeared as paragraph 8 of the questionnaire, were the following :— (1) What during (say) the last fifty years has been the majority usage in the literature ? Has the name murinus been most commonly used or has the name discolor been most commonly used ? (2) If the name murinus has been most commonly used, would you be in favour of the Commission putting a stop to further argument and doubt on the question of interpretation by using its Plenary Powers to direct that the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, be interpreted in the manner adopted by Nilsson (1847) and therefore identified with Vespertilio discolor Natterer, 1818 (or 1819) ?* * See Footnote to paragraph 3 above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 (3) If the name discolor has been most commonly used, would you be in favour of the Commission using its Plenary Powers (i) to suppress the name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, thereby validating the name discolor Natterer, 1818,* as published in the combination Vespertilio discolor, and (ii) to designate Vespertilio discolor Natterer* to be the type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 ? Note (A): If the name murinus Linnaeus were suppressed in the manner indicated above, the later name murinus Schreber, [1775], for the type species of Myotis Kaup, 1829,+ would remain invalid under the Law of Homonymy. Note (B): If it were to be decided to suppress murinus Linnaeus and to validate discolor, it would be essential that Vespertilio discolor Natterer should be made the type species of Vespertilio Linnaeus, for it would be impossible to leave that genus without a type species. 6. As the question of issue was primarily one of interest to workers on the Palaearctic Fauna, the majority of the specialists consulted were workers in European Institutions. The following is the list of specialists consulted. To these would have been added Dr. C. C. Sanborn (Chicago Natural History Museum), the well-known specialist in the Chiroptera, if it had not been understood that the state of his health prevented him from undertaking investigations of the present kind. For assistance in drawing up the list of specialists to be consulted I am particularly indebted to Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski and Dr. W. Serafinski (Warsaw). Specialists to whom the questionnaire prepared in the present case was issued L. Bels (Utrecht, The Netherlands) A.C. VY. van Bemmel (Alkmaar, The Netherlands) H. von Boetticher (Coburg, Germany) J. Dorst (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) E. Eisentraut (Stuttgart, Germany) A. H. de Faveaux (Abbaye de Maredsous, Belgium) S. Frechkop (Bruelles, Belgium) * See Footnote to paragraph 3 above. + See Appendix 2. 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature T. Haltenorth (Miinchen, Germany) R. W. Hayman (British Museum (Natural History), London) A. M. Husson (Leiden, The Netherlands) W. P. Issel (Miinchen, Germany) Remington Kellogg (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I. O. Kaisila (Helsinki, Finland) A. P. Kuzjekin (Moscow, U.S.S.R.) H. Mislin (Basel, Switzerland) Erna Mohr (Hamburg, Germany) T. C. 8. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London) O. Ryberg (Alnarp Institut, Sweden) W. Serafinski (Warsaw, Poland) G. G. Simpson (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) 7. As the result of the consultations described above, the views of ten specialists were obtained. Of these, eight (8) favoured the retention of the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as the name for the type species of Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, subject to the interpretation of that species under the Plenary Powers in the manner adopted by Nilsson (1847), while two (2) only favoured the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name murinus Linnaeus and the designation under the same Powers of Vespertilio discolor (Natterer MS) Kuhl, 1817, to be the type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus. Extracts from the communications so received are given in Appendix 4. In that Appendix comments received from specialists who support the retention and definitive interpretation of the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, are given in Section A, while those received from specialists who support the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, are given in Section B. The International Commission is greatly indebted to these specialists for the help given in assembling the data required for the consideration of the present case. 8. In view of the clear preponderance of the views of specialists in favour of the retention of the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, subject to the interpretation under the Plenary Powers of the nominal species so named in the manner proposed, I recommend that that course be adopted by the International Commission. As will be appreciated, a decision in the present case is a matter of considerable urgency, since the present is one of the relatively small number of cases Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 connected with the clarification or rectification of entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology made in the period up to the end of 1936 on which the taking of decisions is an indispensable preliminary to the forthcoming publication of the Official List in book form. 9. Under the General Directive given to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, to which reference has been made in paragraph 2 of the present paper, it will be necessary to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, as proposed to be defined under the Plenary Powers in paragraph 8 above if the recommendation there submitted is approved by the International Commission. 10. Under a further General Directive issued by the foregoing Congress directing that decisions by the Commission on applications relating to individual names are to be comprehensive in scope and to deal with all names which arise in connection with the cases in question, it will be necessary as part of the general settlement of the present case for the Commission : (1) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (a) the specific name discolor Kuhl, 1817, as published in the combination Vespertilio discolor (which under the proposals now submitted would become a junior objective synonym of murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus) (paragraph 4(c) above) and (b) the specific name murinus Schreber, [1775], as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, a junior homonym of the name published in the same combination by Linnaeus in 1758 (paragraph 4(b) above) ; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829 (paragraph 4(b) above) and _ for the reasons given in Appendix 2 to direct that this name be treated as being of the masculine gender ; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name myotis Borkhausen, 1797, as published in the combina- tion Vespertilio myotis the oldest available specific name for the type species of Myotis Kaup, 1829.* 11. Finally, under a General Directive issued by the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, it is necessary to consider the family-group-name problems involved in the present case. Here it is necessary to note that the nominal genus Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, is the type genus of the currently accepted family VESPERTILIONIDAE. This nominal family-group taxon was first established in the incorrect form VESPERTILIA by Rafinesque in 1815 (Analyse Nature : 54); it was first published in the correct form VESPERTILIONIDAE by Gray (J.E.) in 1821 (London med. Repository 15 : 299). * See Appendix 2. 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829, has not been taken as the base for a family-group name, the genus so named being currently placed in the family VESPERTILIONIDAE. 12. In the light of the considerations set out in the present Report I recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to direct that the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, be interpreted in the manner adopted by Nilsson (1847) and therefore that the type specimen of the nominal species Vespertilio discolor (Natterer MS) Kuhl, 1817, is to be treated as the type specimen also of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758 ; (2) to substitute the following revised entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in regard to the generic name Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, for that made in respect of the foregoing name by the Ruling given in Opinion 91 :— Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy: Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, interpreted as proposed in (1) above under the Plenary Powers) (3) to direct that the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829, be treated as being of the masculine gender ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Myotis Kaup, 1829 (gender, as determined under (3) above: masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Vespertilio murinus Schreber, [1775]*) (5) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus, as proposed to be interpreted under the Plenary Powers in (1) above (specific name of type species of Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) myotis Borkhausen, 1797, as published in the combination Vespertilio myotist (6) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) discolor (Natterer MS) Kuhl, 1817, as published in the combina- tion Vespertilio discolor (a junior objective synonym of murinus * This name is a junior primary homonym of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, and is therefore invalid. The oldest available name for the species concerned is Vespertilio myotss Borkhausen, 1797. + See the immediately preceding Footnote. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus under the Ruling under the Plenary Powers recommended in (1) above) ; (b) murinus Schreber, [1775], as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus (a junior primary homonym of murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio MuUrinus) ; (7) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— VESPERTILIONIDAE (correction of VESPERTILIA) Rafinesque, 1815 (type genus: Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758) ; (8) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Grouwp Names in Zoology :— VESPERTILIA Rafinesque, 1815 (type genus: Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758) (an Invalid Original Spelling for VESPERTILIONIDAE). APPENDIX 1 Note on the authorship and date attributable to the name “ Vespertilio discolor ’’ commonly attributed to Natterer and treated as having been published in 1819 At the time when I drew up the questionnaire regarding the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Vespertilio Linnaeus, 1758, there seemed to be some doubt both as to the date of the publication of the name Vespertilio discolor (a name commonly attributed to Natterer) and as to the paper in which this name was first published. I accordingly included in the questionnaire a request to specialists for information on this matter. 2. Two of the specialists to whom the questionnaire was despatched very kindly gave valuable assistance in this matter. These were: Father A. M. Husson (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ; Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (at that time of the British Museum (Natural History), London, and now Director, The Science Museum, London). The relevant portions of the letters received from these specialists are reproduced in Annexes 1 and 2 respectively to the present note. The information so furnished is summarised in the immediately following paragraphs. 3. Authorship : The name Vespertilio discolor is commonly attributed either to “ Natterer”’ or more frequently to ‘“Natterer in Kuhl”. Father Husson has, 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature however, shown clearly that, while Natterer was responsible for the above name in manuscript, it was Kuhl who alone provided the “ indication” on which under Article 25 the availability of this name rests. Accordingly this name should be attributed to Kuhl, either with or without a note that, as published by that author, it was a manuscript name of Natterer’s. 4. Date of publication: The name Vespertilio discolor appeared twice in a paper by Kuhl entitled “ Die deutschen Fledermiuse ’’. This paper was published in the serial publication Annalen der Wetterauischen Gesellschaft fiir die gesammte Naturkunde. The volume in question was published both as Volume 4 of the above Society’s Annalen and also as Volume 1 of the Second Series of that serial. Kuhl’s paper was published in two instalments, of which the first appeared in Part 1, and the second in Part 2, of the foregoing volume. The first of these Parts appeared in 1818, the second in 1819. Hence it is that the name Vespertilio discolor has been treated by some authors as having been published in 1818 and by others as having been published in 1819. In the first of these Parts the above name appeared only as a nomen nudum. Accord- ingly, so far as concerns the publication of the above name in the Annalen, it ranks for priority only as from the publication of Part 2 of the volume concerned, where for the first time it appeared with an “ indication ’’, i.e., from 1819. Father Husson has drawn attention, however, to the fact that Kuhl’s paper was published as a separate unit in 1817 under the title quoted above, and has advanced evidence in support of the view that this was not a mere preprint and that it should therefore be accepted as the place where the above name was first validly published. In this edition the name Vespertilio discolor appeared on page 43. 5. From the evidence summarised above it may be concluded that the correct attribution, date, and reference for the name under consideration is: Vespertilio discolor (Natterer MS) Kuhl, 1817, ‘‘ Die dtsch. Fledermiuse’’ : 43. ANNEXE 1 TO APPENDIX 1 Extract from a letter dated 22nd March 1956 from A. M. Husson (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) As to the author’s name and the date of Vespertilio discolor I can give you the following information, which I obtained with the help of Dr. L. B. Holthuis of the Leiden Museum. Natterer often is incorrectly cited as the author of this species, while this actually should be Kuhl, who is the author of the paper (entitled ‘‘ Die deutschen. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 Fledermiuse’’) in which the description of the species was first published. Though Kuhl gave the name of his new species as Vespertilio discolor Natterer, there is not the slightest indication that the description was made by Natterer. On the contrary the description is of exactly the same set-up as the other descriptions given by Kuhl. Natterer discovered the species near Vienna, from where he sent (“ mittheilte’’) material to Kuhl. Evidently Natterer recognised the species as new and suggested the name discolor to Kuhl. The same situation exists with Vespertilio Kuhlw, also described for the first time in Kuhl’s paper and for which he too cites Natterer as the author. Of this species Kuhl remarked: ‘‘ Herr Natterer schoss diese Fledermaus selbst in Triest. Seiner Giite verdanke ich mehrere Exemplare, nach welchen ich diese Beschreibung entworfen. Dass er sie nach meinen Namen genannt, erkenne ich dankbar als ein Zeichen der Freundschaft dieses verdienstvollen Mannes. ”’ (op. cit. p. 57). Here it is quite clear that Kuhl drew up the description and that Natterer only suggested the name. Both here as well as in Vespertilio discolor and the other species first described in Kuhl’s paper, Kuhl must be regarded as the author. G. 8. Miller in his ‘‘ Catalogue of the mammals of western Europe ” (1912, p- 238) already correctly cited Kuhl as the author of all the new species described in his “ Die deutschen Flederméuse ”’. The date of publication of Vespertilio discolor causes another difficulty. Sherborn cites it as Vespertilio discolor Natterer, 1818, N. Ann. Wetterau. Ges. ges. Naturk. (1): 14, while Miller (op. cit., p. 238) cites the name as Vespertilio discolor Kuhl, 1819, Ann. Wetterau. Ges. ges. Naturk., iv (= Neue Ann., 1, pt. 2, p. 187). Kuhl’s paper appeared in two parts, the first of these occupied pp. 11—49 of Heft I of Bd. 4 of the Annalen der Wetterauischen Gesellschaft fiir die gesammte Naturkunde (= Heft I of Bd. 1 of Neue Annalen, etc.), which was published in 1818, the second part including pp. 185—215 was published in Heft 2 of Bd. 4 of the Annalen (= Abt. 2 of Bd. 1 of the Neue Annalen, etc.), in 1819. On p. 14 a list of the species is given among which is Vespertilio discolor, but since no description is given here, the 1818 name is a nomen nudum, so that Miller is correct in his opinion that the first description of V. discolor in the Ann. Wetterau. Ges. ges. Naturk., Bd. 4, p. 187 was published in 1819. _ However, both Sherborn and Miller evidently overlooked the fact that before being published in the Ann. Wetterau. Ges., etc., Kuhl’s paper was issued as an independent publication in 1817. The Leiden Museum possesses a copy of this paper, which reads on the title page: Die/ deutschen Fledermause/ von/ Heinreich Kuhl./ Hanau, 1817. This publication also is referred to in Engelmann’s 1846 Bibliotheca Historico Naturalis : 359. The fact that the Ann. Wetterau. Ges. ges. Naturk. were published in Frankfurt am Main (though printed in Hanau) shows that Kuhl’s 1817 version is not just an antedated 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature reprint. The type setting, apart from a different heading on the first page is exactly like that in the paper in the Ann. Wetterau. Ges. ges. Naturk., so that it is evident that the same type-matter was used for both papers. The two plates in the 1817 paper are the same as those of the 1818—1819 publication. The correct reference to Vespertilio discolor thus is: Vespertilio discolor Kuhl, 1817, Die deutschen Fledermduse : 43. ANNEXE 2 TO APPENDIX 1 Extract from a letter dated 6th April 1956, from T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London) I can give you the following information regarding the bibliographical reference to discolor. The work has two title pages: Annalen der Wetterauischen Gesellschaft fiir die gesammte Naturkunde Band IV, and Neue ditto, Band I. Both title pages are of equal prominence and you can take your choice. I believe that Band I of the new series was also the last. Now Part 1, page 14 (published in 1818) is a nominal list of the fifteen German bats in which No. 8 is, “ Vespertilio discolor NATTERERI, zweifarbige Fledermaus.”’. The “ bi-coloured bat ” is not intended as a description ; it is the common name in German, and corresponds in this list to such names as “ spitfliegende Fledermaus ”’, “langohrige F.”, “ zwerg F.”, “‘ Daubenton’sche F.”, “ Bechsteinische F.”, etc. But in Part 2 (published in or about June 1819, according to a pencil note inserted in the work by Sherborn) on p. 187, there is given a very detailed description of discolor, together with Plate X XV which shows the animal. The earlier mention of discolor is simply a sort of index and there is no doubt that the right reference is 1819, Part 2, p. 187. Incidentally we are concerned with just one paper by Kuhl, called “‘ Die deutschen Fledermduse ”’, and it was published in two instalments. It is not quite clear to me that the description is really by Natterer, though Kuhl does give some information about the bats occurrence, which he says that he obtained from Natterer. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 APPENDIX 2 Two points arising in connection with the generic name ** Myotis ’? Kaup, 1829 As a generic name involved in the Vespertilio case, it will be necessary, as part of the settlement to be arrived at in that case, that the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829 (Skizz. Entwickel.-Gesch. nat. Syst. europ. Thierwelt : 106, 105), being an available name in current use, should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. There are two points in connection with this name which call for special mention. The first is concerned with the gender to be attributed to this name, the second with the determination of its type species. These matters are discussed below. (a) Gender attributable to the generic name “ Myotis ’’ Kaup, 1829 2. In accordance with standard practice I invited Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser, to furnish a Report on the question of the gender to be attributed to the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829, when consideration comes to be given to the addition of that name to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. On 5th December 1956 Professor Grensted furnished the Report asked for and on 12th December 1956 he amplified this in a brief Supplementary Report. The texts of these Reports are given in the Annexe to the present Appendix. 8. Professor Grensted’s Report shows that, if the word “ myotis ” were a Classical Latin word, it would be reasonable to expect that its gender would be feminine, though it must be noted that many nouns ending in “ -is ” take the masculine gender. Professor Grensted points out that in the case of the names of animals some nouns in “ -is ” are of common gender. He concludes that, as the word “ myotis”’ is not a classical word, it would be defensible to treat it as being masculine in gender. This is the gender which has been widely used for this name by mammalogists. > 4. In view of the fact that “‘ myotis”’ is not a Classical Latin word, the rules applicable to such words are more of the nature of a guide than of that of strictly binding mandatory provisions. For this reason I am of the opinion that, having regard to the terms of the Reports furnished by the Consulting Classical Adviser, it would be legitimate for the International Commission to give a Ruling that the generic name Myotis Kaup, 1829, be treated as being of the masculine gender and that, having regard to the substantial usage of the masculine gender for adjectival specific names of species and subspecies in this 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature genus it is desirable that such a Ruling be given. I accordingly recommend the adoption of this course. (b) Question of the type species of the genus “‘ Myotis ’’ Kaup, 1829 5. It is commonly stated in standard works of references (e.g. by Miller (G.S.), 1912, Cat. Mamm. w. Europe Coll. Brit. Mus. : 166) that Vespertilio myotis Borkhausen, 1897 (Deutschl. Fauna 1 : 80) is the type species of the genus Myotis Kaup, 1829. From the strictly nomenclatorial standpoint, however, this statement is incorrect, for Kaup, when establishing the nominal genus Myotis, made no mention whatever of the specific name myotis Borkhausen. 6. An inspection of Kaup’s strange little work shows that in it he pursued a fanciful system of grouping under which assemblages of species were placed in successive ‘‘ Reihe ’’, each assemblage consisting of a number of species of bird and one species of mammal. At the end of each of these lists was added the expression “‘ genus of so-and-so”, examples being “Genus Plesiosauris Ranarum ” (: 72), ‘‘ Genus Plesiosaurum ” (: 74), “Genus Ichthyosaurorum ”’ (: 83), ete. The species comprised in each assemblage were allotted numbers in consecutive order, the species at the head of the list being given the highest number and that at the bottom of the list the lowest. Each of these lists was followed by a series of short generic diagnoses related to the species cited in the preceding list by the use of the same serial numbers but arranged in the opposite order to that adopted for the lists of names of species. In these generic diagnoses new generic names were sometimes introduced. No nominal species were cited in these diagnoses. The species intended to be included in any given genus may, however, readily be ascertained by reference to the use of the same serial number (i) for the generic diagnosis and (ii) for the species concerned in the preceding list. 7. In the light of the foregoing explanation of the system employed in Kaup’s book we may now examine his treatment of the generic name Myotis. For this purpose we have to turn to his “ Funf und zwanzigste Reihe ”’ (: 105). This assemblage consists of the following nominal species numbered and arranged as follows: “3. Vespertilio murinus. 2. Caprimulgus europaeus. 1. Procellaria glacialis. Genus Ichthyosaurorum”. Then Kaup gave the corresponding generic diagnoses as follows: “1. Fulmar. Rhantistes”’ (: 105) {referring back to Procellaria glacialis}; “2. Ziegenmelter. Caprimulgus ” (: 106) [referring to Caprimulgus europaeus]; ‘‘3. Mauseohr. Myotis” (: 106) [referring to Vespertilio murinus]. We see therefore that the genus Myotis Kaup was established for the single nominal species Vespertilio murinus, which is therefore the type species by monotypy. ol Pitti Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 8. It is unfortunate that Kaup did not cite authors’ names for the species mentioned in his book, for the binomen Vespertilio murinus was published twice as a new name before Kaup’s time, first by Linnaeus in 1758 (for the species “indicated ” by Linnaeus as the type species of the genus Vespertilio) and second, by Schreber in [1775] for a different species to which later (1797) Borkhausen gave the name Vespertilio myotis. Aided by the diagnosis provided by Kaup, specialists have always accepted the latter species as the type species of the genus Myotis Kaup, 1829. From the point of view of nomenclature the type species of that genus is therefore Vespertilio murinus Schreber, [1775] (Die Saugthiere 1 : 165, pl. 11) and not, as commonly stated, Vespertilio myotis Borkhausen, 1797. This distinction is, however, purely formal, since (as we have seen) the first of these names is an invalid homonyn, while the latter is the oldest available name for the same species. ANNEXE TO APPENDIX 2 Reports on the gender attributable to the generic name “ Myotis ” Kaup, 1829, furnished by Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (a) Report dated 5th December 1956 Normally Myotis would be feminine, like the closely related M yosotis. The only parallel that I have noted, Amphotis, is treated as feminine, and so are nouns in “ -itis””. (Orobitis cyaneus (L.)—so given in Kloet & Hincks— seems to be just wrong, since orobitis is a rare classical noun taken over from the Greek by Pliny and given as feminine.) The only doubt in the case of M yotis arises from the use of the name for a mammal, where considerations of sex do sometimes mean that a name gets its gender from its meaning and not from its form. The word Myotis is not classical. It should be feminine, but, if declared masculine, there would be some case for so doing. (b) Supplementary Report dated 12th December 1956 Perhaps I had better add a further line about these nouns in “-is”. It seems, in classical Latin, that the sex question went a bit with the size of the animal. Thus canis is common gender. So is tigris, though it is masculine in prose writers and feminine in the poets. Felis is very rare in classical Latin, 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and is feminine—but it meant a small cat allied to weasels and such things. Leo is masculine—and, of course, such a name as Felis leo did not occur to classical writers. I have a feeling that a bat would be too small to come under this common gender principle and that, if Myotis had been a classical word for a bat, it would certainly have been feminine. But, as I have said, we have no direct classical precedent. Many nouns in “ -is”’ are masculine and there is a considerable taxonomic tradition for making Myotis masculine. The word has, of course, nothing to do with otis (a bustard), which is feminine. APPENDIX 3 Views as to the interpretation of the nominal species ‘ Vespertilio murinus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, published by Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. in 1897 and by Olof Ryberg in 1947 respectively (a) Extract from a paper by Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. entitled “‘ The Nomenclature of some European Bats ’’ published in 1897 (Miller (G.S.), 1897, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 20 : 379—383) The exact identification of the species murinus among the Scandinavian members of the genus Vespertilio, although a matter of considerable difficulty, does not affect the use of the generic name. Nilsson,* after a careful review of the facts, decided that the animal must have been the bat to which Natterer afterwards applied the name discolor. He therefore very properly placed the latter in the synonymy of V. murinus Linnaeus, and reinstated Bechstein’s name myotis for the Vespertilio murinus of Schreber. Nilsson did not recognise ““ Vesperugo”’ as distinct from ‘‘ Vespertilio”. Hence he said nothing in regard to the tenability of the generic names. Ten years later, Blasius,f although admitting that the Vespertilio murinus of Linnaeus could not be the bat commonly known by that name, considered the species undeterminable, and therefore reasoned that the name first applied to it might afterwards be properly used by Schreber in a different sense. It is not surprising, then, that Blasius continued to apply the name Vespertilio Linnaeus to the genus to which he had restricted it eighteen years before, notwithstanding the fact that, according to his own statement, it could not be made to include any of the Linnean species. In these rulings Blasius was followed by Lilljeborg,f who gave detailed reasons for his belief that it is impossible to determine whether Linnaeus’s bat is the species afterwards called Vespertilio discolor by Natterer, or that called Vespertilio Nilssoni by Keyserling and Blasius. In his opinion, contrary to that of Nilsson, the odds are in favour of the latter. Lilljeborg * Skand. Fauna, Daggdjuren, pp. 17—20 (andra upplagen) (1847). t+ Fauna der Wirbelthiere Deutschlands, Saugethiere, p. 74 (1857). } Sveriges och Norges Ryggradsdjur, i, pp. 124—126, 144 (1874). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 calls attention to Blasius’s mistake in applying the generic name Vespertilio to a group containing no species known to Linnaeus, but concludes that since this error has become time-honoured, it were better uncorrected. (b) Extract from a paper by Olof Ryberg entitled “‘ Bats and Bat Parasites ’’ published in 1947 (Ryberg, 1947, Bats and Bat Paras. : 79—80) Nomenclature: The forms appearing in Sweden agree most nearly to the typical races. Therefore when discussing their biology a binary instead of a ternary (trinary) nomenclature has been used. As regards nomenclature in this chapter I follow Miller, 1912. With reference to synonyms this work should be consulted. An exception is made in the case of Vespertilio discolor Natterer in Kuhl, 1819. For this species Miller uses the name “ Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758 ”’. Natterer’s description is undoubtedly to be assigned to a determined species. Linnaeus’s diagnosis is such as to make it impossible to identify a determined species. From references in the works of Linnaeus it is obvious even with full evidence that the name is a collective designation for several different European species. The collective name has during different periods and in different lands been used to designate a large number of different European species. Although Nilsson was fully aware that a safe interpretation of the Linnean name was impossible he used it in 1847 for Vespertilio discolor Natterer in Kuhl, 1819. This designation was also used by the leading American bat specialist Gerrit Miller from 1897 onwards. I know of no other change in nomenclature which has caused a more hopeless confusion in the literature. If the name murinus is used with or without a mention of Linnaeus as author, one can seldom with certainty know to which species reference is being made. One could search out hundreds of mistakes, confusions and errors which have arisen in the literature quotations when this obsolete name has been used. It would be a significant gain and a release from a heavy burden for the chiropterologist, if this harmful name which cannot be referred to a definite species were avoided in the future. Even if it may be illogical, it would perhaps be an advantage to retain the name Vespertilio as a genus-designation for the species discolor Natterer in Kuhl, 1819. 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Among the authors who perceived the confusion that arose through the use of the name Vespertilio murinus can be mentioned, among others, Lilljeborg, 1874, pp. 124—126; Brandt, 1855, pp. 26—27; Mohr, 1931, p.19; Stiles & Nolan, 1931, p. 727. APPENDIX 4 Views as to the interpretation of the nominal species “ Vespertilio murinus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, received from specialists in answer to the questionnaire issued on 13th March 1956 SECTION A: Comments received from specialists who favour the retention of the specific name ‘‘ murinus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination ** Vespertilio murinus ’’, as the name for the type species of “‘ Vespertilio ’’ Linnaeus, 1758 1. G. G. Simpson (New York) (16th March 1956) It is my impression that murinus has been much more commonly used in recent years than discolor. I have not made a long search but I find murinus used in all the standard reference works on my shelves. A further question here would be whether murinus has been recently used for any other species, and in spite of Ryberg’s statement to the contrary, I do not find any ambiguity in recent applications of the name. I am on this basis strongly in favor of the alternative stated in paragraph 8, sub-paragraph (2). 2. R. W. Hayman (London) (19th March 1956) I have looked into the major literature of the past 50 years on this subject, and can now reply to the three questions in paragraph 8 of your statement of the case. (a) Vespertiiio murinus Linnaeus is the name that has certainly been most used in the literature of the last 50 years. All the major reviewers and writers have used it since Miller’s 1897 paper. (b) I should be in favour of murinus being validated by the Commission in the manner adopted by Nilsson (1847). 3. H. Mislin (Mainz, Germany) (19th March 1956) Soweit ich es tiberblicken kann, war der Name murinus in den letzten 50 Jahren gebraulicher als discolor. 2. und 3. Auf diese beiden Fragen kann ich nicht naher eingehen, aber ich muss zum ganzen Fragenkomplex grundsitzlich das folgende bemerken. In Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 Deutschland und in der Schweiz haben wir bisher 21 Fledermausarten gefunden, die sich auf die beiden Familien der RHINOLOPHIDAE und der VESPERTILIONIDAE verteilen. Die gefundenen Arten der VESPERTILIONIDAE verteilen sich auf 8 Gattungen. Davon waren die 4 Gattengun Nyctalus, E'ptesicus, Vespertilio und Pipistrellus friiher zu einer Gattung Vesperugo vereinigt. Die Arten der Gattung Myotis wurden unter dem Namen Vespertilio gefiihrt, was leider infolge der verschiedenen Anwendung dieses Namens zu Verwechslungen fiihrte, zumal auch die Anwendung der Artnamen viele Anderungen erfahren hat. So trigt jetzt die zweifarbige Fledermaus, die friiher den Namen Vesperugo discolor den Namen Vespertilio murinus. Der Name Vespertilio murinus wurde aber friiher fiir die jetzige Myotis myotis gebraucht. Myotis myotis (Borkh.) war friiher Vespertilio murinus (Schreber). Ich habe diesen Exkurs nur gegeben um darauf aufmerksam zu machen dass der Name myotis und murinus oftmals verwechselt oder ausgetauscht worden ist. Aber nun noch kurz zu Jhrer Frage. Die zweifarbige Fledermaus wurde meines Wissens friiher nicht nur Vespertilio discolor genannt, sondern hiess auch Vespertilio discolor Natt. Ich méchte darum der Kommission vorschlagen, die in Frage stehenden Species als Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus zu bezeichnen. Da jafiirdie Mausohr-Fledermaus die friihere Bezeichnung Vespertiliomurinus Schreber heute nicht mehr verwendet wird und wie oben schon ausgefiihrt durch Myotis myotis (Borkh.) ersetzt worden ist, kann nomenklatorisch keine Verwechslung mehr auftreten und man sollte deshalb bei der zweifarbigen Fledermaus (Vespertilio discolor Natter.) auf den ersten Autor namlich auf Linnaeus zuriickgreifen. 4, T. Haltenorth (Miinchen, Germany) (20th March 1956) I am in favour of the Commission putting a stop to further doubt on Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758. Vespertilio discolor Natterer has to be a aynonym of V. murinus Linnaeus. I am not in favour of the Commission suppressing the name murinus Linnaeus, 1758. 5. A. M. Husson (Leiden) (22nd March 1956) (1) It is very hard to say which of the two names murinus or discolor has been most commonly used in the last 50 years. My personal impression is that the ratio is about fifty-fifty, while the name murinus during that time has been used in several important publications like Miller’s Catalogue of the Mammals of Western Europe (1912), Hisentraut’s Die Deutschen Fledermaiise (1937), and Ellerman & Morrison-Scott’s Checklist of Palearctic and Indian Mammals (1951). 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) In my opinion stability would be best served by accepting the inter- pretation of Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, adopted by Nilsson and subsequently by Miller and numerous other authors. I am therefore in favour of placing the specific name murinus Linnaeus, 1758, in the combination Vespertilio murinus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Furthermore I am in favour of the Commission using its Plenary Powers to direct that the nominal species Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, be interpreted in the manner adopted by Nilsson (1847) and therefore identified with Vespertilio discolor, 1817 (not 1818 or 1819 [see Appendix 5 as a Footnote)). 6. S. Frechkop (Bruzelles) (29th March 1956) J’ai ’honeur de vous faire savoir que je suis partisan de la conservation du nom Vespertilio murinus Linné qui est celui de la “ petite chauve-souris murine ’’, tandis que Myotis myotis (Borkhausen) est le nom technique pour “le Murin ”’. 7. W. Serafinski (Warsaw) (4th April 1956) (1) In the majority of publications during the last fifty years there was used the name Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758. Some authors added as a rule the synonym Vespertilio discolor Natterer in Kuhl, 1819. (2) I am accordingly supporting the action proposed in point (2) of para- graph 8 of your paper. 8. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (London) (6th April 1956) (1) There is no question about it. The name murinus has been the generally accepted one for this bat for the last sixty years. I am strongly in favour of proposal (2) of your questionnaire and hope that action will be taken on it. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 SECTION B: Comments received from specialists who favour the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name “‘ murinus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination “ Vespertilio murinus ’’, and the designation under the same Powers of ‘‘ Vespertilio discolor ’’ Natterer, 1818, to be the type species of the genus “ Vespertilio ’’ Linnaeus 1. Erna Mohr (Hamburg) (17th March 1956) - Habe ich bereits vor einem Vierteljahrhundert den Artnamen murinus Linnaeus abgelehnt zugunsten von discolor Kuhl resp. Natterer [see extract below]. Mobr Erna: The Mammals of Schleswig-Holstein, Altona/Elbe, 1931, p. 19: “5. Zweifarbige Fledermaus, Vespertilio discolor Kuhl. ... Die von Miller angewendete Artbezeichnung murinus L. sollte besser vermieden werden; die Artnamen murinus, myotis und die deutsche Bezeichnung Mausohr fiir mehrere Arten verschiedener Gattungen haben das Fleder’ mausstudium ganz ungebiihrlich belastet ”’. 2. E. Eisentraut (Stuttgart) (29th March 1956) Obgleich in den letzten Jahrzehnten fiir die in Frage kommende Species fast allgemein der Name Vespertilio murinus Linnaeus, 1758, angewendet wurde, stimme ich der Ansicht Rybergs zu, dass infolge der bestehenden Unklarheiten, welche Species vorgelegen hat, der Name Vespertilio discolor Nat., 1818, Giiltigkeit haben soll. Vespertilio discolor Nat. ware daher als “ type species ”’ fiir das Genus Vespertilio zu bezeichnen. 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ TOXORHYNCHITES ’? THEOBALD, AS PUBLISHED IN 1901 IN THE “JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE ”’ (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By ALAN STONE (Entomology Research Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and KENNETH L. KNIGHT (Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1166) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to secure that the generic name Toxorhynchites (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) shall be made available for use in its accustomed sense with T'oxorhynchites brevipalpis Theobald, 1901, as type species. For this purpose the Commission is asked to suppress the above generic name as published by Howard in anticipation of its publication by Theobald, since, if this generic name were to be recognised as from Howard, a most confusing change in the type species of the genus would be involved. The relevant facts are set out in the following paragraphs. 2 The generic name Tozxorhynchites first appeared in Mosquitoes by L. O. Howard, published by McClure, Phillips and Company, New York, 1901, pp. 154, 155, 235, and 240. This was copyrighted in June 1901, a copy in the Surgeon General’s Library, Washington, D.C. is stamped as having been received on 5th July 1901, and it was reviewed in Science on 9th August 1901. On page 234 Howard wrote, “Two other new generic names proposed by Mr. Theobald, viz.: Toxorhynchites and Conchyliastes, have been adopted and are characterized in the tables. It will be noticed that the characterizations are printed with quotation marks, and that they are followed by Mr. Theobald’s name in parenthesis. This method of printing will make Mr. Theobald responsible for these genera as well as for Stegomyia, in the event that this book is issued from the press in advance of his publication ’’. On page 235 the characters in the key leading to Toxorhynchites are given as follows: Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 4. March 1957. ee > ae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129 ‘* Palpi in the male at least nearly as long as the proboscis ; in the female less than one-half as long; Legs destitute of such [nearly erect] scales ; ‘ Colors, green and bluish, proboscis very strongly curved’ (Theobald) ”’. It should be noted that only the characters in the last couplet are in quotation marks. On page 240 under Toxorhynchites Howard wrote, ‘“‘ These are among the largest of our mosquitoes and closely resemble those of the following genus [Megarhinus]. Our single species has all the feet marked with white : rutilus Coq.”’. The figure of the female of 7’. rutilus on page 154 shows the palpi short. 3. If we accept Toxorhynchites as from “‘ Theobald in Howard ”’, then it is a monobasic genus with Megarhinus rutila Coquillett, 1896 (Canad. Ent. 28 : 44)* as the type species. To accept this would be unfortunate since Toxorhynchites has universally been accepted as a genus (or subgenus) in which the palpi of the female are only about one-fourth as long as the proboscis, whereas in rutilus the palpi are about two-thirds as long as the proboscis. Howard apparently had a female of rutilus in which the palpi were incomplete and he failed to realize the fact. 4. The name Toxorhynchites was next published by Theobald on 15th July 1901 in The Journal of Tropical Medicine, vol. 4, p. 234. Here it was differen- tiated from Megarhinus and characterized in a key as, “‘ Proboscis formed for suction ; metanotum nude... Palpi long in male, shorter in female; first submarginal cell very small; proboscis bent. .. . Palpi three-jointed in female. ... Scales of the head are all arranged like tiles on a roof, flat ; thorax with spindle-shaped and broad scales over the wings; scutellum with broad scales ; caudal tuft present on last few apical abdominal segments. ... female palpi three-jointed and short ’’. No species was included by name. 5. Then, in A Monograph of the Culicidae, vol. 1, p. 244, published on 23rd November 1901, Theobald described the new genus Toxorhynchites based on the single species 7’. brevipalpis n. sp., p. 235. This species has short palpi in the female. Under Megarhinus rutillus [sic.] on page 244 Theobald wrote :— A figure of this species is given by Howard, in his “ Notes on the Mosquitoes of the United States’ (Bull. 25, New Series, U.S.A. Dept. Agriculture, fig. 21, p. 46). In this the palpi are shown very short ; probably they are broken off ; if not, it comes in the genus Toxorhynchites. [Footnote] Mr. Coquillett writes me that this belongs to Megarhinus, not Toxorhynchites”’. The figure referred to is the same as that published in Howard’s Mosquitoes. * Owing to this species having been placed in a genus having a name of masculine gender its specific name has rather consistently been spelled rutilus ever since it was first published. 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. Edwards (1912, Bull. ent. Res. 3:3) discussed the use of the name Toxorhynchites in Howard, giving reasons for not accepting the name as valid in that publication. This conclusion has been accepted ever since then, although Edwards was incorrect about the invalidity of the name. 7. The genus Toxorhynchites Theobald is currently treated as the type genus of a family-group taxon within the family cuLicipaxr. It is believed that the earliest such name is TOXORHYNCHITINAE Theobald, 1905 (tn Wytsmann, Gen. Ins. 26 : 5). 8. Because the name TJ'oxorhynchites has universally been accepted as having as its type species 7’. brevipalpis Theobald, a species with short palpi in the female, and in order to stabilize the name in accordance with present usage, we recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Toxorhynchites Howard, June, 1901 (Mosquitoes) for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Toxorhynchites Theobald, July 1901 (J. trop. Med. 4 : 234), as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1) above (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Toxorhynchites brevipalpis Theobald, November 1901) ; (3) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) brevipalpis Theobald, November 1901, as published in the com- bination Toxorhynchites brevipalpis (specific name of type species of T'oxorhynchites Theobald, July 1901) ; (b) rutila Coquillett, 1896, as published in the combination Megarhinus rutila ; (4) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— Toxorhynchites Howard, June 1901, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131 (5) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— rutillus Theobald, 1901, as published in the combination Megarhinus rutillus (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of rutila Coquillet, 1896, as published in the combination Megarhinus rutila) ; (6) place the under-mentioned family-name on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology :— TOXORHYNCHITINAE Theobald, 1905 (type genus : T'oxorhynchites Theobald, 1901). SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL BY F. HEMMING AND N. D. RILEY RELATING TO THE GENERIC NAMES ‘“ CHRYSOPHANUS ”’ AND “ BITHYS ’’ HUBNER, 1818 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By ERICH M. HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitét zu Berlin) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 802) (For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 13—21) (Letter dated 4th February 1957) Fur die Deutsch sprechenden Lepidopterologen wird der Vorschlag auf Verwerfung des gast allgemein verwendeten Namens Chrysophanus fir die ‘‘ Feuerfalter ”? recht unerwartet kommen und ihre Kritik herausfordern. Dieser zu verwerfende Name wird in fast allen in der Hand der Lepidopterologen befindlichen deutschsprachigen Handbiicher (Berge-Rebel, Hoffman-Spuler, Lam- pert und sogar Seitz) verwendet und erst in dem im Erscheinen begriffenen Werk von Forster & Wohlfahrt ausgeschieden. Es wird allgemein erwartet werden, dass man hier das “‘ principle of conservation ’’ anwende. Gegenwirtig befindet sich aber die Nomenklatur der Genera der Lycaenidae in einem vélligen Umbruch, der auf die Aufteilung der alten Sammelgattung Lycaena zurickgeht. In diesem Zusammenhange erscheint es wiinschenswert, dass inner- halb der palaearktischen Gattungen der Lycaenidea vollstiéndig ‘‘ reiner Tisch ” gemacht wird und in der Zukunft keine Zweideutigkeiten in der Gattungsbezeich- nung mehr moglich sein werden. Der deutschsprachige Lepidopterologe weiss schon jetzt, dass er bei den Lycaenidae ihm noch nicht recht geliufige Namen fiir Gattungen oder zumindest Untergattungen anwenden muss. Er wird daher Verstiindnis dafiir haben, dass im Zuge dieser ‘‘ Flurbereinigung’’ auch der mehrdeutige Name Chrysophanus verschwindet. In diesem Sinne unterstiitze ich die von Hemming und Riley vorgeschlagenen Massnahmen. 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS (a) TO STABILISE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES “ BULLA TRUNCATULA”’ BRUGUIERE, [1792], and (b) TO VALIDATE THE SPECIFIC NAME “ UMBILICATA’’ MONTAGU, 1803, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ BULLA UMBILICATA”’ (CLASS GASTROPODA) By HENNING LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 381) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers (a) to remove existing doubts as to the interpretation of the nominal species Bulla truncatula Bruguiére, [1792] and (b) to validate the specific name umbilicata Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Bulla umbilicata (Class Gastropoda). The problems involved are essentially distinct, but the two cases are here submitted jointly because (as will be seen) the first of these names has been applied by a few authors to the second of the two species concerned instead of to the first, the species to which that name has been applied by the great majority of workers. The two species concerned are referred to as Species “A” and Species ‘‘ B”’ respectively in the following paragraphs. Species “A’’ 2. Up to the year 1867 Species “A” was known by the specific name truncata Adams, 1800 (Bulla truncata Adams (J.), 1800, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 5:1). In that year, however, Jeffreys (1867, Brit. Conch. 4 : 423) pointed out that the name Bulla truncata Adams, 1800, was invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of Bulla truncata Gmelin (J.F.), [1791] (in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(6) : 3484). At the same time Jeffreys pointed out that the oldest available name for this species was Bulla trunculata Bruguiére, [1792] (Ency. méth. (Vers) 1 : 377). Since the publication of Jeffreys’s paper over ninety years ago the name trunculata Bruguiére has come into almost universal use, having been applied to Species “A” by the great majority of workers. In an analysis published in 1948 (Danske Vidensk Slsk. biol. Skr. 5 (No. 3) : 83—84) I showed that of the 80 authors who had dealt with this common European species from localities in the Atlantic Ocean north of Latitude 40° N. since the publication of Jeffreys’s paper 65 (81 per cent.) had applied the name truncatula Bruguiére to it, while of the remaining 15 authors, ten continued to use the name truncata Adams. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 4. March, 1957. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133 3. Reference must be made here to two other early names which either apply to, or are alleged to apply to, Species ‘“‘A”. These names are the following :— (a) In 1804 the nominal species Bulla jeverensis was established by Schréter (Archiv. Zool. (Wiedemann) 4(1) : 16). The species so named is either Bulla truncatula Bruguiére (as currently interpreted) or Bulla obtusa Montagu, 1807. Menke (1830, Syn. méth. Moll. Gen. Spec. (ed. 2): 13) identified this nominal species with truncata Adams (i.e. with truncatula Bruguiére) and in this he was followed many years later by Marshall (1912, J. Conch. 13 : 330). The specific name jeverensis Schréter has been used only once for the area of the North Atlantic, namely by Paetel (1888, Syst. Aufzdhl. sémmt. Conch. Sammlung Paetel (ed. 4) 1) where he cited it (: 622) (in combination with the generic name Cylichna) side by side with the name truncatula Bruguiére which he cited (: 634) (in combination with the generic name Utriculus). No figure was given by Schréter for his nominal species Bulla jeverensis and a final identification of the taxon so named is impossible. The only present importance of this name resides in the fact that it would be a constant threat to stability if it were to be decided to adopt some later name for Species “‘A’’. (b) The other name which requires to be considered is Bulla retusa Maton& Rackett, 1807 (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 8 : 128). This name, which was published as a replacement name for the invalid homonym Bulla truncata Adams, 1800 (see paragraph 2 above), is the oldest available name which can with full certainty be applied to Species “A”. It was used in this sense by a number of early authors (Turton, 1807, 1819 ; Davies, 1812 ; Dillwyn, 1817 ; Wood, 1818; Brown, 1827 (as Volvaria retusa). Quite recently an attempt was made to reintroduce this name by Winckworth (1932), who was followed by Fischer (1935). : 4. The specific name retusa Maton & Rackett was reintroduced by Winckworth in a checklist of the British Marine Mollusca (1935, J. Conch. 19 : 231). He was unable on that occasion on grounds of space to explain why he considered this change necessary. Later, however, he kindly furnished me (i litt.) with the following explanation : ‘‘ Bruguiére’s description [of his truncatula] is detailed and suggests R. wmbilicata rather than R. retusa. This is borne out by the reference to Plancus’s figure, which is an excellent portrait of R. nitidula [now recognised as a variety of umbilicata] but would not be quoted in connexion with R. retusa. Bruguiére quotes Plancus’s locality, but his own specimens were fossils from Courtagnon”. In taking this view Winckworth adopted the same argument as had been advanced many years earlier by Morch (1872, Vid. Medd. naturh. Foren. Kjob. f. 1871 : 176) who had written as follows: ‘‘ Bruguiére in his description mentions neither the 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature deep spire nor the characteristic longitudinal furrows on the hindmost part of the shell. The references to Plancus and Solani are to two quite different species. As supposed also by Philippi, Bulla wmbilicata is more probably the species of Bruguiére ” [translation by the present author]. A renewed examination by myself (Lemche, 1948 : 56) inclined me, however, to the view that on balance it was likely that B. truncatula Bruguiére was the same species as that which later was given the name B. retusa by Maton & Rackett. 5. It would clearly be most undesirable that doubts should be allowed to continue as to the specific name properly applicable to so common and well- known a species as Species “A”. It is necessary therefore to consider how best this can be avoided. One solution may be entirely ruled out, namely the adoption of the specific name truncatula Bruguiére for the species later named Bulla umbilicata by Montagu [= Species ‘‘ B” discussed in paragraph 7 below], for such an arrangement would have the double disadvantage (a) of depriving Species “‘ A” of the name by which it has been known by almost all authors for the last ninety years, and (b) of depriving Species ““B” of the name umbilicata Montagu which has been used for it for more than a century and a half and in addition of applying to that species a name which (as explained above) has for so long been applied to Species “A”. A second course would be for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name truncatula Bruguiére for the purpose of paving the way for the adoption of the specific name retusa Maton & Rackett, 1807. Such a solution would require also the suppression by the Commission under its Plenary Powers of the specific name jeverensis Schréter, 1804, which has priority over retusa Maton& Rackett and (as explained in paragraph 3(a) above) has also been identified—though doubtfully—with Species “A”. Quite apart from this consideration, I am opposed to such a solution because it would deprive Species “A” quite unnecessarily of the specific name truncatula Bruguiére which it has borne for so many years and would thus involve an unwarranted break in the continuity of the nomenclature of this group. 6. While, as I have explained (paragraph 4 above) I am of the opinion that the nominal species Bulla truncatula Bruguiére can properly be interpreted as representing Species ‘“A”’, I agree that Bruguiére’s description is unsatis- factory and may contain elements referring to other species. I have considered whether this difficulty could be overcome by the selection of a lectotype for Bruguiére’s species or by the selection of some specified portion of his description to represent the lectotype, but I am of the opinion that this course is not feasible. I have reached the conclusion therefore that it would only be possible for the above name to be unquestionably linked with Species “ A” by the Commission, acting under its Plenary Powers, either to approve a neotype for this species or to direct that Bruguiére’s nominal species be interpreted by reference to some later published description which refers beyond doubi Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135 to Species “‘ A”. Of these courses the latter seems to me the most convenient in the present case. I therefore recommend that, in order to provide a sure basis for the long established and, in my view, correct use of the specific name truncatula Bruguiére for Species “‘ A ”’, the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to direct that the nominal species Bulla truncatula Bruguiére, [1792], be interpreted by reference to the specimen on which was based the later nominal species Bulla truncata Adams, 1800. Such a solution will in addition remove the threat to the name currently applied to Species “ B” represented by the name truncatula Bruguiére from the standpoint of any author who may share Winckworth’s view that that name applies to, and is the oldest available name for, Species “ B’”’. Species ““B”’ 7. The oldest name certainly applicable to Species ““B” and the name which for the past century and a half has been used for that species is Bulla umbilicata Montagu, 1803 (Testacea brit. 1 : 222). Iredale (1915, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 11 : 340) pointed out, however, that the above name is invalid as a junior homonym of Bulla umbilicata Roding, 1798 (Mus. Bolten. : 15). The taxon so named by Réding is a true Bulla, but the name umbilicatus Roding is not required and has never been used by any subsequent author. If as the result of the foregoing circumstances it were necessary to abandon the name umbilicata Montagu, the species so long known by that name would need to assume the little-known name Volvaria subcylindrica Brown, 1827 (Jil. rec. Conch. : pl. 38). It would, however, be intolerable that a long neglected name such as umbilicata Réding—especially one which was published in a work which was not declared to be available for nomenclatorial purposes until as recently as 1926 on the publication of the Commission’s Opinion 96— should be allowed to overturn the consistent usage of a hundred and fifty years by relegating to synonymy the well-known name umbilicata Montagu, 1803. It would clearly be in harmony with the principle of stability so emphatically laid down by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953 that the name wmbilicata Roding, 1798, should be suppressed by the Commission under its Plenary Powers and I accordingly recommend that this should be done. Recommendations 8. In the light of the considerations set out in the present application I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to give a Ruling that the nominal species Bulla truncatula Bruguiére, [1792], be interpreted by reference to the specimen upon which Adams (J.) in 1800 based the nominal species Bulla truncata ; 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) to suppress the specific name wmbilicata Réding, 1798, as published in the combination Bulla umbilicata, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) truncatula Bruguiére, [1792], as published in the combination Bulla truncatula, and as interpreted under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above ; (b) umbilicata Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Bulla umbilicata, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) truncata Adams (J.), 1800, as published in the combination Bulla truncata (a junior homonym of truncata Gmelin (J.F.), [1791], as published in the combination Bulla truncata and, under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above, a junior objective synonym of truncatula Bruguiére, [1792], as published in the combination Bulla truncatula) ; (b) retusa Maton & Rackett, 1807, as published in the combination Bulla retusa (a junior objective synonym of truncata Adams (J.), 1800, as published in the combination Bulla truncata, and therefore, under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above, a junior objective synonym of truncatula Bruguiére, [1792], as published in the combination Bulla truncatula) ; (c) umbilicata Roding, 1798, as published in the combination Bulla umbilicata, as proposed in (1)(b) above to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers. SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION BY R. P. TRIPP AND W. F. WHITTARD REGARDING THE GENERIC NAME ‘“ ENCRINURUS ”’ EMMRICH, 1844 (CLASS TRILOBITA) By JAMES L. BEGG (Glasgow) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1059) (For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 259—263) (Letter dated 18th March 1957) I have read the separate by my friends Mr. Ronald Tripp and Professor Whittard. The trilobite pygidium figured on Plate 3 I have always identified as Encrinurus punctatus Emmrich, but in view of what is stated in the Bulletin I quite agree that it should now be named Hntomostracites punctatus Wahlenberg. @r @ee airs ~ ghee Ree | Hs - CONTENTS | onto from front wane tn by EE YEG: af ; ase Lopate ee Pains BAS Coa, < a. UT seat a nee aif | akin ey hp A pty | | Sh inet See tne Plenary Pow te detemine he interpretati ae “Hh wers t ei 8 on (73 age a of the hot species V Acaaires Bar cee 758 , ey at Rak (Class Mammalia) (Francis emming) AAS erpe Set): ~ de se ay = Ass Pe Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate se ehcp eee Toxorhynchi July 1901 sea eras. Order inal isyagat Seen 8 Lol ae Sa wes of die cca Powers (a) to ae the inter- eee nominal species poner, . Fe) a b) to validate the specific na licata ba eee ea Gastropoda) . Pye es # ie “Comments on Applications : | Props by Fen ming and N. D. Riley re the generi 5 if rene ‘a Bith 5 Hubner, ti a Onder Lepidoptera): pune py Hering 131 s ae by yRP. P. Tripp & W. F. Whittard relating to the generic name Encrin a ae ino Sie oy : Support by S. Ts pee . oe oe 136 ua IMPORTANT a dae To NEW SUBSCRIBERS the Internati ne Sea on "zoological No iene: *, in which are od the decisio ker by the International Commission on D ‘in the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature’. This work is issued n Paids a soon as possible after | have been taken on individual cases. It is an indispensible work of reference for all Institutions concerned with systematic zoology or palaeontology. Full | culars are obtainable from the , International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41 Publications Officer aM oe cate, Lond London, | S.W.7. ——— OS >): ha — ——___—_—_-— ———————e SI ‘Printed in England by Mercatre & Cooper Lisutep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 VOLUME 13. Part 5 6th May 1957 pp. 137—168, 1 pl. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Pett i A pl es —— The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZCOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE : g way 135! AONE z A@ > Ur. ' oe {™ Bh A mS is Edited by \ fee et 1 FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. ta. wet? Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CONTENTS : Notices prescribed by the Iniernational Congress of Zoology : Page Date of commencement of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications ap tear: in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature > ea. beeen Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenelature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1957 Price One Pound, Two Shillings (Ali rights reserved) ety 1h, mY, U.S.A.) | tani seri ‘sm to at at y ae a . a i. — =e ee oF a ae 4 os ee W- oe ary) ogee ye ) ot sey 1948) das ell See Sk ua dcutaane é jer at sets ete i ‘W.Y., U.S.A.) Sa ae oer ie SS See t iw ye ‘3 wc (Phe Hebrew Engi re (11th Novenites 1954) Mu eri arative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- Jo (rie tl 6, Dn Genova, Italy) (16th ~ J ei » RAY 1957 PURLHASED BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 13, Part 5 (pp. 137—168, 1 pl.) 6th May 1957 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. 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 ”’ Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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. 13, Part 5) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing, and in duplicate, 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 Notice 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 cases :— (1) squilla Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer squilla, suppression of; adspersus Rathke, 1837 (Palaemon), designation of, as type species of Palaemon Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Z.N.(S.) 446); ey Tite 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (2) Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, validation of, with Gordius medinensis Linnaeus, 1758, as type species (Class Nematoda) (Z.N.(S.) 553) ; (3) Mansonia Blanchard, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), validation of (Z.N.(S.) 1193). 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 Par’ will be laid before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the time of commencement of voting on the application concerned. 8. 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 serial publications Nature and Science. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 6th May 1957. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13 Plate 2 Rudolf Richter 1881—1957 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139 PROFESSOR RUDOLF RICHTER (7th NOVEMBER 1881—5th JANUARY 1957) Rudolf Richter, Professor of Geology and Palaeontology in the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main from 1925 to 1949, and Director of the Senckenberg Museum in the same city from 1933 to 1946, justly deserved his world-wide reputation for accurate work and extensive knowledge of trilobites. His publications on this group were spaced over 47 years and in his last days he was concluding his descriptions of certain trilobite families for the forthcoming T'reatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. The loss of his generous help will be keenly felt by many palaeontologists and geologists, and particularly by young students living beyond the confines of his own country. As stated in an earlier Part of this volume of the Bulletin (Part 1, published on 25th January), Rudolf Richter served as one of the German representatives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature from 1930 to 1940 and, when Germany was cut off from the Commission’s headquarters during the war years, he continued to describe himself, in relevant publications, as a member of this Commission during and immediately after the war. Eminent palaeontologists such as Bather, F. Chapman, Dollo, Handlirsch and Osborn are amongst Richter’s seniors who have served as Commissioners, but by precept and practice, Richter was perhaps the most active and effective palaeontological exponent of the work of the Commission. Perusal of Richter’s trilobite taxonomic studies reveals a succession of his discoveries and corrections of nomenclatorial errors committed by previous workers, and even of some which he had himself perpetrated. He wrote many short papers and critical reviews in support of stability of nomenclature according to the international code. His LHinfiihrung in die Zoologische Nomenklatur durch Erlduterung der Internationalen Regeln published during the war in 1943 by the Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft was a successful counterblast to an attempt by some of his countrymen to impose upon German scientists a national, in place of an international, code of nomenclature. This publication appeared in a revised edition in 1948 and the profits from its sale were used towards the cost of rebuilding the war-damaged Senckenberg Museum. It is a 252-paged book, well meriting a place in every palaeontologist’s library. He devoted 130 pages to the 36 Articles of the Rules with supplementary amplifying notes commonly quoting palaeontological examples. Preceding these is a general section indicating the relationship between nomenclature and taxonomy, also the desirability of international rules of procedure, and in particular, that palaeontology should follow the nomenclatorial codes of botany and zoology Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 5. May 1957. 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature respectively, rather than attempt to rationalise a restricted code applicable only to fossils. Richter wisely deplored the fate of palaeontology if it should become only a cross between philately and the worship of index fossils. In his discussion of Article 8, he disparaged the creation of puns in constructing generic names, though somewhat ironically he and Frau Dr. Emma Richter have been perpetuated nomenclatorially in the trilobite name Reraspis, a play on the initial letters of their names. Richter was outspoken concerning the desirability of adequate illustration of fossil species ; not only when discussing Article 25 in this book but in several of his papers, he recalled the decision of the Second International Geological Congress, Bologna, 1881, that “ A l’avenir, pour les noms spécifiques, la priorité ne sera irrévocablement acquise que lorsque l’espéce aura été non seulement décrit, mais figurée ” ; and he expressed the hope that the Zoological Congress would ratify this decision for fossil animals even as the Botanists had done for fossil plants. In his own work he recognised no fossiled species or genera created after 1882 without illustration or reference to previous illustration. He pointed out the disadvantages of photographic illustration alone; his own systematic works, mostly written in co-authorship with his wife Dr. Emma Richter, who predeceased him in November 1956, were admirably illustrated by her line- and wash-drawings, though latterly the Richters used a combination of photographs and drawings. Born at Glatz in Silesia, Richter studied at the universities of Munich and Marburg, taking his phil. nat. doctorate at the latter university in 1908, with a thesis on Devonian trilobites from the Rhineland. He married in 1913 and joined the staff at Frankfurt in 1920 as Dozent in the Geological-Palaeonto- logical Institute. His classic work onthe Upper Devonian trilobites was published in 1926. He wrote much on the relationships of structure of life habits of trilobites ; his observations on the loss of eyes in different lmeages and on the dating of the various extinction times of different families were especially important, as also was the evidence he adduced concerning the relationship of the occurrence of trilobites to the interpretation of stratigraphical geology. In later years the Richters’ attention was turned to description of Cambrian trilobite faunas in the Mediterranean region and of Carboniferous genera and species. An outstanding feature of Richter’s other activities was his service to the Museum and to the Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft in Frankfurt. Not only was he the first editor of Senckenbergiana, a periodical founded in 1919 to mark the centenary of that society, but in 1928, he brought into being the Senckenberg Forschungsstelle fiir Meeresgeologie und Meeres- palaontologie at Wilhelmshaven, which subsequently was known as “ Sencken- berg am Meer”. Furthermore he took over editorship of the Abhandlungen of the society in 1935 and for many years he also edited the Society’s popular CS ie i ee ak? -* Céphalopodes crétacés des environs de Diego-Suarez. Part 2 ”, Ann. Paléont. 2: 1—56, pl. 1—8 Crick, G. C., 1919: “On Ammonites navicularis Mantell ”, Proc. Malac. Soc. London 18 : 154—160, pl. 4 Hyatt, A., 1900: Cephalopoda in Zittel-Eastman Textbook of Palaeontology 2nd Ed., 1 : 502—592, London and New York _——_, 1903: “ Pseudoceratites of the Cretaceous, edited by T. W. Stanton ”’, U.S. geol. Surv. Mon. 44 : 1—351, pl. 1—47 Jukes-Browne, A. J., 1896: in Jukes-Browne & Hill “ A Delimitation of the Cenomanian ”’, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. 52 : 99—178, pl. 5 Mantell, G., 1822: Fossils of the South Downs : 1—320, pl. 1—43, London Pervinquiére, L., 1907 : ‘“‘ Etudes de Paléontologie Tunisienne., I, Céphalopodes des Terrains Secondaires ”, Carte géol. Tunisie : 1—428, pl. 1—27 Roman, F., 1938 : Les Ammonites jurassiques et crétaciques : 1—564, pl. 1—63, Paris 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Sharpe, D., 1853—1857 :. Description of the Fossil Remains of Mollusca found in the Chalk of England. Pt. I. Cephalopoda, Palaeont. Soc. London : 1—68, pl. 1—27 Sowerby, J., 1812—1823: The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain 1—4 (pars) : pl. 1—383, London Spath, L. F., 1921: On Cretaceous Cephalopoda from Zululand, Ann. 8. Afr. Mus. 12 :; 217—321, pl. 19—26 , 1923: “On the Ammonite Horizons of the Gault and Contiguous Deposits’, Summ. Progr. Geol. Surv. for 1922 : 139—149, London , 1926: ‘On new Ammonites from the English Chalk”, Geol Mag. 63 : 77—83 , 1937: ‘“ The Nomenclature of some Lower Chalk Ammonites ”’, Geol. Mag. 74 : 277—281 Wright, C. W., & Wright, E. V., 1951: A Survey of the Fossil Cephalopoda of the Chalk of Great Britain, Palaeont. Soc. London (1950) : 1—40 ** ANOPHELES ”’ MEIGEN, 1818 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) (THE STONE/KNIGHT PROPOSAL) (a) Support by Ernestine B. Thurman (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1165) (Letter dated 21st May 1957) This is to report that I concur with the five opinions stated by Dr. Alan Stone and Dr. Kenneth L. Knight dealing with the designation of the type species of the genus Anopheles Meigen, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). (b) Corrigendum Attention is drawn to the fact that through an oversight the name ‘“* Maculipennia”’ unfortunately appeared as “ Maculipennis”’ in the above application. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ HOPLITOPLACENTICERAS ’”’ (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) (UPPER CRETACEOUS) AS FROM PAULCKE, 1906, AND TO DETERMINE ITS TYPE SPECIES By C. W. WRIGHT (London) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1197) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give a direction as to the interpreta- tion of the nominal species Hoplites plasticus Paulcke, 1906, the type species of the genus Hoplitoplacenticeras Paulcke, 1906, and, having done so, to place the name of that genus on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 2. In 1906 W. Paulcke described and figured a series of ammonites from the Upper Cretaceous Campanian stage in Patagonia. Among them was a group of forms which he regarded as transitional between the genera Hoplites Neumayr, 1875, and Placenticeras Meek, 1876. He headed the section of his paper which dealt with this group (: 12—54) “‘ Hoplites-Placenticeras’’ but later had a heading ‘‘ Hoplito-Placenticeras”. He explains (: 17) that these “ transi- tional *’ forms can be described as ‘‘ Hoplitoplacenticeras”’: those that show strong hoplitoid characteristics might, he suggested, be written with the “ Hoplito- ” portion in roman, and the “ -placenticeras ” portion in italic type, while the reverse method might be employed for those with placenticeratoid characteristics. Paulcke’s ideas are so peculiar that I annexe below a facsimile of the passage in question :— Facsimile of the first complete paragraph on page 183 (= page 17 of separate) of Paulcke’s paper Zwischenformen zwischen Hoplites und Placenticeras wiirden dementsprechend als Hoplitoplacenticeras bezeichnet. Wiegen Ho- plitenmerkmale vor, so wire der Name AHoplitoplacenticeras zu schreiben, wiegen Placenticeratenmerkmale vor, so miisste Hoplito- placenticeras stehen. — Bei etwa Gleichwertigkeit der Merkmale wiirde kein Name hervorgehoben. — Als Beispiel eines echten Placenticeras wire Placenticeras placenta MEEK anzufiihren, wihrend Placenticeras pacificwm Smirn nach obigen Auseinandersetzungen als Hoplitoplacenticeras zu bezeichnuen ware. - Untér dem vorliegenden Material wiirden die Formen des plasticus-laevis als Hoplitoplacenti- ceras bezeichnet werden kénnen, wenn man es nicht vorzieht, sie einfach noch Hoplites zu nennen. . Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 7. June 1957. 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8. Despite these generic names Paulcke described all his new species and subspecies of the group simply as “‘ Hoplites”’. He refers (: 20) to the “ Gruppe des Hoplites plasticus Paulcke ” and the following ‘‘ Untergruppen ” :— “ Hoplites plasticus-Hauthali ”’ plasticus-crassus ”’ plasticus-costatus ” plasticus-semicostatus ”’ plasticus-laevis ”’ After preliminary discussion of each “ Untergruppe”’ he describes each in the form normal for specific or subspecific descriptions, but describes no H. plasticus plasticus. 4, Cossman (1907 : 239) in a footnote to Sayn’s review of Paulcke’s paper pointed out that these proposals (paragraph 3 above) were completely contrary to the accepted rules of nomenclature. 5. However, the generic name Hoplitoplacenticeras, so spelt, has come into general use and is attributed to Paulcke. Spath used it in 1922 (: 111). Diener in his Fosstlium Catalogus volume lists it and gives as type species ‘‘ Hoplites plasticus Paulcke”’. Roman (1938 : 505) describes it and gives as type species “ Hoplites plasticus Paulcke”’. Usher (1952 : 93) describes a new species and gives as type species of the genus “‘ Hoplites plasticus-hauthali Paulcke”’. In 1953 Spath refers to the genus and sets out the peculiar history of the name, described in paragraphs 2 to 3 above. He mentions also the name Dechenoceras, listed by Kayser in 1924 as the generic name of the species Ammonttes coesfeldiensis Schlueter, 1867, a species which Spath and other authors regard as congeneric with the plasticus group. All the forms figured and described by Paulcke were so described in a way appropriate to subspecies, that is, as trinominals, apart from the fact that he linked the subspecific to the specific name with a hyphen. Clearly, he regarded them all as subspecies of one species which would consequently be the type species of his genus by monotypy. 6. Kayser’s work is a textbook. The name Dechenoceras appears twice (: 175, 176), in the combination ‘“‘ Dechenoceras coesfeldiense Schliiter’’, in lists of characteristic fossils. To the best of my knowledge the name has not appeared before or since, except in the reference by Spath, quoted in paragraph 5 above. It is possible that Kayser quoted it from the manuscript of a colleague in the expectation that the name would have been validated in print before the publication of his own book. 7. Despite the irregularity of its publication the name Hoplitoplacenticeras is in general use. Confusion would be caused if it were to be replaced by ay Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 Dechenoceras or some new name and no damage would be done to the name of any other animal if the name Hoplitoplacenticeras were to continue in use. It would be both logical and desirable that the name should continue to be attributed to Paulcke, in whose paper are to be found descriptions of a number of forms of the genus. 8. Paulcke described no nominate subspecies for his nominal species Hoplites plasticus and one of his subspecific names must therefore become synonymous with the nominate one. Usher’s mention of Hoplites plasticus- hauthali, referred to above, may have been intended as a selection of hauthali as a synonym of Hoplites plasticus plasticus but, if it was so intended, his words cannot be accepted as a selection, if that term is rigidly construed. In 1953, however, Spath in the paper referred to in paragraph 5 above stated that “it is advisable to select a definite type species of Hoplitoplacenticeras from among the various plasticus forms of Paulcke and I propose to take as typical H. plasticus the species represented by Paulcke’s pl. xiii, figs. 1, ia—d (1906, p. 204 =“ H. plasticus-semicostatus’’) which is intermediate between the extremes, H. hauthali and H. laevis’. I believe that the foregoing selection by Spath might be held to be valid, Spath clearly believing some or all of Paulcke’s named forms as representing full species. In anticipation, however, of the possibility that the Commission might take the view that, rigidly construed, a formal lectotype selection for the nominal species Hoplites plasticus Paulcke is required, I hereby select as the lectotype of that species the specimen figured as Hoplites plasticus-semicostatus by Paulcke as figures 1, la and lb on plate XIII(4) of his paper. 9. No family-group-name problem arises in the present case, the genus Hoplitoplacenticeras Paulcke being currently placed in the family PLACENTICERATIDAE Hyatt, 1900 (type genus: Placenticeras (emend. of Placentoceras) Meek, 1870). 10. I therefore invite the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Hoplitoplacenticeras as from Paulcke, 1906, with the nominal species Hoplites plasticus Paulcke, 1906, as type species ; (2) to direct that the nominal species Hoplites plasticus Paulcke, 1906, be interpreted by the lectotype selection made in paragraph 8 above ; (3) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Hoplitoplacenticeras Paulcke, 1906, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1) above (gender : neuter) (type species, by designation 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature under the Plenary Powers in (1) above : Hoplites plasticus Paulcke, 1906, as interpreted in (2) above) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— plasticus Paulcke, 1906, as published in the combination Hoplites plasticus and interpreted as prescribed in (2) above (specific name of type species of Hoplitoplacenticeras Paulcke, 1906) ; (5) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— semicostatus Paulcke, 1906, as published in the combination Hoplites plasticus-semicostatus (a junior objective synonym of the nominate subspecies of Hoplites plasticus Paulcke, 1906, through the lectotype selection approved in (2) above). References Cossman, M., 1907: Revue critique de Paléozoologie, Paris Diener, C., 1925: Fossilium Catalogus (1) 29, Ammonoidea neocretacea Kayser, E., 1924: Lehrbuch der Geologie 4, 2, Stuttgart Paulcke, W., 1906: ‘‘ Die Cephalopoden der oberen Kreide Siidpatagoniens ”’, Bericht. Naturforsch. Ges. Freiburg 15 : 167—244 Roman, F., 1938: Les Ammonites jurassiques et crétacées. Essai de genera, Paris Spath, L. F., 1922: “On Cretaceous Ammonoidea from Angola”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 53 : 91—160 , 1953: “‘ The Upper Cretaceous Cephalopod Fauna of Graham Land ”, Falkland Islands Dependencies Surv., Sci. Rep., : 3 ; Usher, J. L., 1952: ‘‘ Ammonite Faunas of the Upper Cretaceous Rocks of Vancouver Island, British Columbia ’’, Geol. Surv. Canada, Bull. 21 —_ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME ‘‘ KOTOCERAS ’”’ YABE, 1927, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE NAMES ‘** KOTOCERAS ”’ KOBAYASHI, 1934 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER NAUTILOIDEA) AND “ DAMESITES ’”? MATSUMOTO, 1942 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) By C. W. WRIGHT (London) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1201) The purpose of this application is to secure the current usage of the two generic names Damesites Matsumoto, 1942 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) and Kotoceras Kobayashi, 1934 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea). Both of these names are threatened by the existence of the name Kotoceras Yabe, of which Damesites Matsumoto on a strict application of the rules is a junior synonym and Kotoceras Kobayashi is a junior homonym. 2. In 1927 Yabe published in lists and without any description a new generic name for a group of Upper Cretaceous ammonites of the family DESMOCERATIDAE, in the following terms :— (in a list on p. 36) “ ‘ Desmoceras ’ (Kotoceras, Yabe MS) damesi Jimbo % bide 53 ) laeve Yabe (MS nom.) ”’ (in a list on p. 44) “‘ ‘ Desmoceras ’ (Kétoceras*) damesi Jimbo (Gls se ) laeve* Yabe a (one ) semicostatum* Yabe ” (on the explanation of plate 7, fig. 9 a, b) > ‘* Kotoceras (gen.nov.) damesi ”’ (in this work an asterisk denotes a MS name) 3. Since the nominal genus or subgenus Kotoceras was published in 1927 and included a valid species (Desmoceras damesi Jimbo, 1894 : 172) it is presumably nomenclatorially available, despite the unsatisfactory nature of its establish- Bull. zool, Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 7, June 1957, 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ment and the apparent intention of its author that it should remain a provisional name for the time being. 4, In 1934 Kobayashi (: 391) published as a new nominal genus Kotoceras, for a group of Palaeozoic nautiloids, with an originally designated type species, of the new species K. typicum Kobayashi (: 392). 5. In 1935 Shimizu, in a work on the Upper Cretaceous cephalopods of Japan, refers frequently to zones named after various species of Kotoceras and on page 179 writes :— Kotoceras damesi (Jimbo). Kotoceras was created by YABE with Desmoceras damesi Jimbo as its genotype... Shimizu, however, gave no description or differentiation of the genus. 6. In 1942 Matsumoto (: 24), under the impression that Kotoceras Yabe was invalid and that consequently Kotoceras Kobayashi was valid, established a new nominal genus Damesites for the Upper Cretaceous ammonite group in question, type species by original designation Desmoceras damesi Jimbo, 1894. 7. The name Damesites is now in general use (for example in numerous papers by Matsumoto on Japanese Cretaceous faunas, in the Ammonoidea volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology and in a recent work by Spath (1953 : 42) who refers to “ Damesites Matsumoto, 1943 (= Kotoceras, Shimizu, 1935 non Kobayashi, 1934)’’). Undesirable confusion would be caused if the validity of Kotoceras Yabe, 1927, set up in such an indeterminate manner, were to be confirmed, with the consequences that Kotoceras Kobayashi would have to be renamed and that Damesites Matsumoto would fall into synonymy with Kotoceras Yabe. 8. No family-group-name problem arises in connection with either of the generic names dealt with in the present application, neither of which has been taken as the base for a family-group name. The genus Damesites Matsumoto is currently placed in the family DEsMocERATIDAE, while, as regards Kotoceras Kobayashi, it is not at present possible to form a judgment as to its family position. 9. It is recommended therefore that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should, in exercise of its Plenary Powers :— (1) suppress the name Kotoceras Yabe, 1927, for purposes of both the Law of Homonymy and the Law of Priority ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Damesites Matsumoto, 1942 (gender : masculine) (type species by original designation : Desmoceras damesi Jimbo, 1894) ; (b) Kotoceras Kobayashi, 1934 (gender: neuter) (type species by original designation: Kotoceras typicum Kobayashi, 1934) ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) damesit Jimbo, as published in the binominal combination Desmoceras damesi (specific name of type species of Damesites Matsumoto, 1942) ; (b) typicum Kobayashi, 1934, as published in the binominal combina- tion Kotoceras typicum (specific name of type species of Kotoceras Kobayashi, 1934) ; (4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— Kotoceras Yabe, 1927, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above. Reference; Jimbo, K., 1894: “ Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Fauna der Kreideformation von Hokkaido ’’, Pal. Abhandl. 6 (N.F.2) : 8, 149—194 Kobayashi, T., 1934: “ The Cambro-Ordovician Formations and Faunas of South Chosen”, “ Palaeontology, Part I. Middle Ordovician Faunas”, J. Fac. Sci., imp. Univ. Tokyo [2] 8, 329—519 Matsumoto, T., 1942: “A Note on the Japanese Cretaceous Ammonites belonging to the Subfamily Desmoceratinae ”, Proc. imp. Acad. Japan 18 : 2429 Shimizu, 8., 1935: “The Upper Cretaceous Cephalopods of Japan, Part I ag J. Shanghai Sci. Inst. (2) 1 : 159226 Spath, L. F., 1953: “The Upper Cretaceous Cephalopod Fauna of Graham Land”, Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey, Sci. Rep. 3 Yabe, H., 1927: “ Cretaceous Stratigraphy of the Japanese Islands eer Rep. Tohoku imp. Univ. (2) 11 ; 27—100 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSAL TO PLACE ON THE “ OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID WORKS IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ” THE BOOKLET “‘ TESTACEA MINUTA RARIORA ”’ BY WILLIAM BOYS, AS AUGMENTED BY GEO. WALKER, LONDON, [1784]. By HENNING LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1205) During the work with an application now before’ the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature concerning the name of the tectibranch gastropod Bulla obtusa Mtg., my investigation brought me to the publication entitled ‘‘ Testacea Minuta Rariora—etc.”’ or, in its full English version given immediately below the Latin one, “ A Collection of the Minute and Rare Shells, lately discovered in the Sand of the Sea Shore near Sandwich ; by William Boys, Esq.; F.S.A. Considerably augmented, and all their Figures accurately drawn, as magnified with the Microscope. By Geo. Walker, Bookseller, at Faversham, London’’. No indication of the year of publication is to be found in that work, but Engelmann (Bibliotheca historico-naturalis 1 : 453) gives the year as (1784), which is the year generally accepted for the said publication. As the booklet is sometimes used for references of zoological names and is non-binominal, it would seem advisable to obtain a Ruling from the International Commission that the names therein are nomenclatorially invalid. 2. Concerning the authorship, it may be mentioned that Boys seems hardly to have done more than discovered the small shells in the sand, handling several samples over to Walker, who sorted them, together with examples comprised in several more samples collected from time to time by himself. Walker had the drawings published and, in close co-operation with Edward Jacobs, produced the text for which Walker, therefore, would seem to be responsible. 3. In the introduction, it is stated that (: V) ‘‘ the assigning adequate trivial names to the shells, except in a few instances, hath been omitted, through the fear of giving such as might in any way interfere with those already given by Linnaeus —”’. The “ few instances ”’ in which adequate trivial names are given, are the few cases where a determination to species of Linnaeus or some other author is given in small type below the description, but no new names are thereby introduced. The main text is drawn up in the old polyverbal descriptive way, as will appear from the citations given below. Bull, zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 7, June 1957, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 (page 2, lower part) FIG. 6 SERPULA (Lagena) striata sulcata rotunda. The round striated and furrowed Flask Wormshell, The colour whitish, transparent and glossy, From Sandwich, Reculver, and Shepey—very rare. FIG. 7 SERPULA (Lagena) marginata. The bordered Flask Wormshell, The colour white, transparent and glossy, From Reculver—very rare. (page 3, below middle) FIG. 10 SERPULA (Retorta) rotunda margine cervice curvatim exerto. The marginated Retort Wormshell, The colour white and opaque, From Sandwich—not common. 4. As shown above, there cannot be any doubt that the booklet as such is non-binominal in its nomenclature. A few of the names, however, might perhaps by someone be taken to represent binomina or trinomina. It appears desirable once and for evermore to do away with the booklet for nomenclatorial purposes, by placing its title on the Official Index. 5. Therefore, I now propose to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature that it should place the booklet by William Boys and George Walker entitled the Testacea minuta rariora, [1784] on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A “ DECLARATION” CLARIFYING CERTAIN PROBLEMS ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH NAMES PUBLISHED IN WORKS WRITTEN IN LATIN By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1223) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to adopt a Declaration clarifying certain problems arising in connection with names published in works written in Latin. The problem here in question arises from the fact that, whereas in the case of works written in any language other than Latin, the requirement that zoological names shall consist of Latin or Latinised words or words treated as such makes it possible in almost every case readily to identify as zoological names Latin words occurring in the work concerned. This, however, is not always so easy in the case of works written in Latin. 2. Generic names published in works written in Latin are fairly numerous in the older literature and such names have always been accepted, many now being in common use. Generic names so published are generally recognisable without much difficulty owing to the fact that in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of the Régles they are usually printed with an initial capital letter. Moreover, in an ordinary Latin sentence a noun occurring otherwise than as the first word of that sentence is not printed in this way and accordingly the use of a capital initial letter in such cases provides a useful indication that the word in question was being used as a generic name. In most cases also a clear indication is provided by the fact that, except on the hypothesis that the word in question was being employed as a generic name, it would be impossible to translate the sentence from the Latin in a way that would make sense. The acceptance of a word as a generic name when published in a work written in Latin is dependent upon its being published in the nominative singular, as has been made clear by the Commission by the Ruling given in Opinion 183, the substance of which was written into the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 139—140). The position as regards specific names published in works written in Latin is broadly similar to that of generic names, except that in their case (except in the case of proper nouns in some early works) they are not printed with capital initial letters. On the other hand, identification as specific names in such cases is commonly assisted by the fact that a new specific name Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 7. June 1957. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 normally makes its appearance in immediate juxtaposition with a specific name. 3. A similar problem arises in connection with subspecific names when published in works written in Latin. In the case of such names when consisting of noun substantives the indication that the word was intended by its original author to be a zoological name differs in no respects from those discussed above in connection with specific names. The position is, however, not always so clear when instead of a noun an adjective is employed. Even in these cases there is, however, often no ground for doubt. As a comparatively recent example we may cite the Catalog der Lepidopteren des Palaearctishen Faunengebietes by Otto Staudinger and Hans Rebel published in 1901, the whole of the descriptive indications in which are written in Latin and which abounds with. new “ varietal” (i.e. subspecific) names. The following are examples taken at random from the above work: Hrebia afer var. hyrcana (: 51); Cigaritis acamas var. transcaspica (: 76); Agrotis trux var. amasina (: 152). In these cases it is perfectly obvious that the Latin adjectives concerned were published as subspecific names, this being demonstrated both by the schematic lay-out adopted in the Catalog and by the fact that after each name the author (Staudinger) added an abbreviated version of his name e. Stgr.”’). 4. There are cases, however, where the reader is not assisted either by the insertion of the author’s name or by the use of so rigid a lay-out. Numerous examples of this kind may be found for example, in the Gmelin (13th) Edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus. We may cite here, as an example, a case in the Class Aves which has already been dealt with (though in other respects imperfectly) by the Commission in one of its older Opinions (Opinion 67) when it placed the generic name T'richoglossus Stephens, 1826, on the Official List. In this case the Commission cited as a subjective synonym of the name of the type species the name Psittacus novae Hollandiae [sic] Gmelin (1788, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(1) : 316). Reference to Gmelin’s work shows that this name (in the defective spelling novae Hollandia) was introduced as the name of a “ varietas’ of what he called Psittacus haematotus and that at the same time he introduced another name, moluccanus, for what he regarded as another “ varietas’ of the above nominal species. The taxon concerned was for long known by the name novaehollandiae (correction of novae Hollandia) Gmelin, 1788, and the only reason why it is not now so known is that it has been found that by a First Reviser selection made by Jardine & Selby ([1831]) it is necessary to give precedence to the other name (moluccanus) published by Gmelin (as shown above) on the same occasion in the same work. 5. There is no doubt that the general practice of zoologists has been to accept as validly published names words employed as such works written in 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Latin, though here and there in the literature a few such names will be found which have been either overlooked or rejected for one reason or another. Such cases represent, however, at most no more than a very small minority. It would certainly cause a most serious disturbance in current nomenclatorial practice if names published in the foregoing manner were now to be rejected. It seems desirable that the situation should be clarified by the adoption by the Commission of a Declaration making it clear that names of the kind discussed above are to be accepted as satisfying the requirements of the Régles. 6. In this as in other similar cases it seems desirable that the proposed Declaration should be so drafted as to have a strictly objective nomenclatorial basis, thus avoiding the difficulties which are always liable to arise in provisions involving subjective judgment. It is accordingly suggested that the proposed Declaration should be on the following lines :— Draft of suggested ‘‘ Declaration ”’ Where in any work written in the Latin language :— (1) a noun (or a word treated as a noun) is employed as a generic name, it is to be accepted as having been validly published as such, provided that it was published in the nominative singular ; (2) a noun or adjective is associated binominally with a word accepted under (1) above as having been employed as a generic name, the noun or adjective concerned is to be accepted as having been validly published as a specific name ; (3) a noun or adjective is associated trinominally (either directly by or by being linked to a binomen by an expression such as “ ssp.”’, ““ var.”, etc.) with a word accepted under (2) above as having been employed as a specific name, the noun or adjective concerned is to be treated as having been published as a subspecific name. Pts ui Ea a u . Geter, PURLHASED ; Tesee’ 2 2 JUL 1957 Es at a a sheet otter aries i,j ae Se ee ey, ee | with accustomed usage for the genus ep canoe Soe ae re - a Sane bay senate Wal, don, (1784) ie OSE At OP ie” Reape ane = anes ask ‘ he es <> mf Tae - ~~ j - Proposed tdiee of a Declaration clarifying ce arising in connection with names published in in Latin (Francis Hemming)... oN (gh tie CONTENTS (Continued from inside back wrapper) Comments on Applications The Viviparus/Paludina complex (Class ero ee by A. E. Ellis): support by H. B. Baker .. 205 Anopheles Meigen, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (proposal by A. Stone and K. L. Knight) : (a) support by Ernestine B. Thurman a = AG (b) corrigendum .. =e =F fe be ar .. 220 IMPORTANT NOTICE TO NEW SUBSCRIBERS Attention is drawn to the work “ Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ’’, in which are published the decisions taken by the International Commission. on applications published in the “‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’’. This work is issued in Parts as soon as possible after decisions have been taken on individual cases. It is an indispensable work of reference for all Institutions concerned with systematic zoology or palaeontology. Full particulars are obtainable from the Publications Officer, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. ee eeEeeeFSOSOee 0 0 E—E Se ee ee PN eee ie ee, | eS ee es er ee en eS oh | — Sa Notices preeriby INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jornpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester BrapLEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmrye (London, England) (27th July 1948) 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) Professor H. Bosouma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Casrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemcus (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaxi (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr, Norman Denbigh Riney (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwsk1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Dr. Robert Murrens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hmria (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) ( Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BrapLry (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanx6 (Mezogazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoxx (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SytvestreR-Bravwey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Houruvis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, T'he Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Mizrer (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiitunexr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. Boprnnemer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale «G. Doria,” Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) oe a eS Leo | IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL SUBSCRIBERS _ Before the completion of the present volume (Volume 13) the publication of two other volumes of the “* Bulletin of Zoological menclature ’’ will have begun. The volumes in question will h be concerned with preparations for the Fifteenth International mgress of Zoology, to be held in London in July 1958. Of e two volumes, the first (Volume 14) will contain the draft of English text of the “‘ Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature ylogique ”, as revised by the Paris (1948) and the Copenhagen 53) Congresses and will be the principal document to be con- red by the London Congress next year. The second of the es concerned (Volume 15) will contain comments received gard to the draft of the English text published in Volume 14, er with such proposals as may be received for the further vement of the “Régles’’. This volume will, in effect, be genda Volume for the Section on Nomenclature of the London songress. _ Subscribers are accordingly asked to check carefully the ne numbers and Part numbers of all instalments sent to them Honorary L Museum, President: : (12th Aug Vice- Preside: Secretary: M (Arra: Professor H (Ist Janua Senor Dr. Ar Mr. Francis | Dr. Henning Professor Tei Professor Pie Mr. Norman Professor Dr Poland) (1 Professor Dr. a. M., Ger Professor Dr Germany) | Senhor Dr. A Professor J. ] Professor J. | ( President) Professor Hai U.S.A.) (1 Professor Bé Dr. Norman | August 19; Mr. P. C. Sy Dr. L. B. Hi August 19! Dr.:Ks- HI A.C.T., A Dr. Alden H. U.S.A.) (2 Doc. Dr. Fer 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiinnexr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitd!, Vienna, Austria) (6th INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE November 1954) Professor F. S. BopEnnEimER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Prefessor Enrico Tortonresr (Museo di Storia Naturale «G. Doria,’ Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 13, Part 8 (pp. 233—264) 26th August 1957 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. 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 ”’ Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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. 13, Part 8) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing, and in duplicate, 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 Nomenelature of its Plenary Powers in certain cases Notice 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 cases :— (1) parvula Mérch, 1863 (Aplysia), protection of (Class Gastropoda) (Z.N.(S.) 1209) ; 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (2) Anodonta Lamarck, 1799, protection of (Class Pelecypoda) (Z.N.(S.) 1222) ; (3) padi Linnaeus, 1758 (Aphis), validation of, for the European Bird Cherry Aphid (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (Z.N.(S.) 1225) ; (4) lineata Young & Bird, 1828 (Terebratula), interpretation of (Phylum Brachiopoda, Class Articulata) (Z.N.(S.) 1217) ; (5) subconcinna Davidson, 1852 (Rhynchonella), interpretation of (Phylum Brachiopoda, Class Articulata) (Z.N.(S.) 1218) ; (6) anonyma Lewis, 1872 (Limenitis), suppression of (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Z.N.(8.) 1180). 2. Attention is also drawn to the proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the status under Article 14 (agreement in gender) of adjectival specific names consisting of partly Latinised words (Z.N.(S.) 1064). 3. 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. 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 serial publications Nature and Science. ~ FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 26th August 1957. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A “DECLARATION”? ON THE QUESTION WHETHER ADJECTIVAL SPECIFIC NAMES CONSISTING OF NOT FULLY LATINISED WORDS SHOULD BE TREATED, UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE “REGLES ih foes = CONSISTING OF “ BARBAROUS ” WORDS AND THEREFORE AS BEING EXEMPT FROM CHANGE IN GENDER By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1064) The purpose of the present application is to place before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature certain difficulties which have come to light in connection with the spelling to be adopted for specific names consisting of direct transliterations of Greek adjectives and to invite the International Commission to provide a solution by rendering a Declaration clarifying the action which under Article 14 of the Régles should be taken in such cases. 2. This problem was first brought to the attention of the Office of the Commission by Dr. Leo Sheljuzhko (Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Miinchen, Germany) who in a letter dated 9th December 1955 enquired what was the correct form for the specific name melaina if placed in a genus having a name which was masculine in gender. The word “melaina” is a direct transliteration of the feminine form of a Greek adjective, a direct transliteration of the masculine of which is “ melas” and of the neuter “melan”’. The question for consideration is how a specific or subspecific name consisting of the word “ melaina”’ should be formed when combined with a generic name consisting of a word having either a masculine or a neuter gender. 8. In a case such as that discussed above there are broadly two alternatives : either a specific name such as melaina should take the form melas if placed in a genus having a name of masculine gender such as Parnassius (the genus to which the taxon bearing the above name cited by Dr. Sheljuzhko is currently referred) or (b) such a name should be treated as not being subject to change when the taxon bearing that name is placed in a genus having a name which is either masculine or neuter in gender. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 8. August 1957. 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4, As a preliminary to the further consideration of the present problem, I invited Professor the Rev. L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission, to examine and report on the problems involved. The very interesting Report subsequently furnished by Professor Grensted is attached to the present note as an Appendix. It will be seen from Professor Grensted’s Report that he takes the view that the best course will be to treat specific names of the class discussed above as consisting (in the terminology of the Régles) of “ barbarous”’ words and therefore as being exempt from the normal rules regarding the agreement in gender of adjectival specific names with the generic names with which they are combined. It will be seen also that in his Report Professor Grensted raises also the question of the treatment to be accorded to specific names belonging to a somewhat analogous group, namely names consisting of compound words which are adjectival in form in cases where the final component of the name is wholly Greek in form. 5. Professor Grensted’s proposals appear to me to merit full support, for in addition to being logical and self-consistent, they provide a solution which is in harmony with current usage, the adoption of which would avoid unnecessary and undesirable name-changing. 6. If provision in regard to this matter is to be made in the revised text of the Régles by the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London next year, it is clearly desirable that the present problem should be thrown open to general discussion as soon as possible. It is for the purpose of providing a basis for such a discussion that, in agreement with Professor Grensted, I now submit for consideration the proposal that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should adopt a Declaration clarifying as follows the provisions of Article 14 in the above regard :— Draft Declaration (1) Where a specific name consists of a word which is an adjective in Greek or in any other language, except Latin, and where the exact form of that adjective is retained when the word in question is published as a zoological name, the name is to be treated as being composed of a “ barbarous ” word and accordingly is not to be subject to change in termination if the specific name consisting of that word is combined with a generic name having a gender different from that in which the specific name in question was cited at the time when it was first published. Example: A specific name consisting of the word “ melaina”’, that word being an exact transliteration of the feminine form of a Greek adjective, the transliteration of the masculine of which is “ melas ”’, is to retain the form in which it was originally published, irrespective of the gender of any generic name with which it may be combined. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 (2) The Rule prescribed in (1) above is to be applied also to.any specific name consisting of a compound word where that word is adjectival in form and its final component is wholly Greek in form and origin. Example: A_ specific name consisting of the compound word “ celebrachys ”’, being a word which is adjectival in form, its final component being wholly Greek in form and origin, is not to be changed to “ celebracheia ” if the taxon so named is placed in a genus having a name of feminine gender but is to retain its original form, irrespective of the gender of any generic name with which it may be combined. APPENDIX On the application of the Rule of Gender Agreement in the case of specific names which are adjectival but have not been Latinised By L. W. GRENSTED, M.A., D.D. (Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Dr. Sheljuzhko, in a letter to the Secretary of the Commission, has raised a question as to the correct form of the sub-specific name in the case of Parnassius mnemosyne melaina. The name melaina was first used by von Honrath as the name for an aberration, but later von Bryk raised the form to the status of a sub-species, and accordingly gave melaina its masculine form in Greek, melas. This raises a question involving a number of specific names which are Greek in form and which have sometimes been attached to generic names with a curious disregard for agreement in gender. Specific names, under the Rules, are regarded as Latin. Should they, when wholly Greek in form, follow the laws of Greek grammar, or not ? 2. The common Greek adjective melas, melaina, melan is a case in point. Melas is only found in classical Latin as a proper name, and the feminine melaina is not found at all. In Souter’s Glossary of Later Latin an obscure writer of 4th century A.D. is cited as giving the Latinised melas, melaena, melan, but this is nothing more than a transliteration of the genders of a common Greek adjective. It does not amount to its use. But it enables us to treat melaena as a proper Latin transcription of wéAucva, a fact which may be of service in circumstances which might arise. In zoological nomenclature the use of melas begins with an anomaly, never challenged down to the present day, in Erebia melas Herbst, where Erebia is feminine and melas masculine. But melas in this case is doubtlessly the name Melas, taken from classical mythology, as with so many butterflies, and not the adjective. For melaina we have Sitta melaina Beseke (1787), and, twenty years later, melaena appears 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in Haltica melaena Iliger (1807), followed by Atherix melaena Hoffmansegg (1820), Mordella melaena Germar (1824), Baris melaena Germar (1826), Membracis melaena Germar (1835), Cetonia melaena McCleay (1838), Locusta melaena de Haan (1842), etc. As all these names are feminine no question arises, and none can arise unless one of these species is transferred to a masculine genus, when the question raised by Dr. Sheljuzhko would have to be asked again. 3. Melas and melaina are purely Greek in form. It is more difficult to know how to regard melaena. One solution is to treat it as a neo-Latin adjective in spite of its obviously Greek origin. This solution appears in such regrettable forms as Abramis melaenus Agassiz (1835), Aradis melaenus Germar (1840), and Sphaeridium melaenum Germar (1824). Obviously Germar, who uses the specific name five times, treated it in that way. The alternative is to treat melaena, with melaina, as a fixed form, not varying in gender. The case can fairly be argued on either side. 4. In this connection the use of the very common Greek adjective micros-a-on is illuminating. This appears as a specific name with a complete and undisputed disregard of gender. Thus micros, used correctly with Tachys, Trechus and Miarus, appears in Bembidiuwm micros (Sturm) C. R. Sahlberg, Diss. Ent. Ins. Fenn. 205 (1827), where the neuter micron would naturally be expected. Still more curious are Bulimus micra d’Orb, 1837, and Obeliscus micra H. Beck, 1837, where the feminine is doubtless based on Helix micra d’Orb, 1835. The danger here is that micra, like melaena, might come to be regarded as a Latin feminine, giving rise to a masculine micrus, a form which is wholly unclassical. The obvious suggestion is that an original micros or micra should remain unchanged, whatever may be the gender of any generic name under which the species concerned may come to be placed. 5. To confirm this we have Metallina lampros Herbst, where Metallina is feminine, for which the accepted name now is Bembidion lampros, where Bembidion is neuter, lampros being the masculine form of the Greek adjective. 6. In such a specific name as Hulophus myodes Walker the difficulty does not arise, for though myodes (uvaSns) is a purely Greek form it would not vary at all in any gender when put into Latin lettering. 7. The natural suggestion, upon this evidence, is that where a specific name is wholly Greek in form (or, indeed, of any other language than Latin) — it should be treated as ‘“‘ barbarous” and not be subject to any change of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 gender, even when there is a change of gender in the generic name to which it is attached. This rule might apply when the dipthong ai is transliterated ae, thus covering such cases as melaena, but there is an arguable case for treating melaenus-a-um as a neo-Latin adjective. 8. Such a form as melaneus, melanea, which has been used (as in Saxicola melanea Rueppell) is, of course, a true neo-Latin adjective, and would not come under such a rule. 9. The above rule should also apply in compound specific names where the final component of the name is wholly Greek and cannot naturally be given a Latin change of gender. Such names are rare, but a form such as celebrachys (Eustrigiphilus celebrachys Nitsch in Denny, 1842) would have as its natural Greek feminine celebracheia. It would be far better to keep the original form of the name unchanged. 10. There is one group of Greek adjectives which might perhaps be held to constitute an exception to the principle. These are compound two-termination adjectives ending in -os. These do not change in the feminine, but end in -on in the neuter, and were often taken over in their Greek form by Latin writers with a taste for Greek, such as Petronius and Pliny. Thus we find monochromos -on, monochordos -on, paraphoros -on, and many others. The case has not actually arisen with Nymphalis polychloros (L.), but polychloros, though not classical in either Greek or Latin, is clearly an adjective of this type, and there would be strong classical precedent for writing polychloron if the species were ever placed under a generic name of neuter gender. The case is a most unlikely one, and such specific names appear to be extremely rare, if indeed there is another to be found. Probably the best course would be to treat this case too as coming under the Rule suggested above. 11. This note is not intended to be a complete survey of the cases that may arise. Actually it is a very difficult matter to cover the field, since an Index of specific names does not afford a ready clue to their termination. It would be very desirable, before a final decision is taken in this matter, that comments should be obtained from experts in different parts of the field. It would be particularly helpful if specialists who may be aware of analogous cases which would not fall within the scope of the rule suggested above would furnish particulars of those cases, so that the rule might be expanded to such extent as may be necessary. 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE SPECIFIC NAME “ PARVULA ”’ MORCH, 1863, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION ‘‘ APLYSIA PARVULA’’ (CLASS GASTROPODA) By N. B. EALES (Department of Zoology, Reading University, Reading) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1209) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to provide a secure basis for the name Aplysia parvula Morch, 1863 (Class Gastropoda) by using its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name spuria Krauss, 1848, as published in the combination Aplysia spuria, a nomen dubium which it has recently been claimed (Macnae, 1955) represents the circumtropical species named and characterised by Moérch under the name cited above. 2. The following is Mérch’s description of his nominal species Aplysia parvula :— T. solida, subpellucida, alba, convexa, subovalis, angustata; spira incurva, mamillata, utrinque subauriculata, latere dextro sinu arcuato brevissimo, superne marginato, inferne sulco profundo notato; latere sinistro arcuato, juxta apicem acie canaliculato ; striae incrementi validae, inaequales, remotae; striae radiantes obsoletessamae, striae solitaria dextralis, submediana, sat impressa. Long. 8} mill lat. 5 m. a) Specimen flaccidium. C. molle, gracile, fusiforme ; epipodii lobi breves, postice integri, continui; oculisublaterales, ante basim tentaculorum posticorum siti; tentacula gracilia, acuta. Long. 16 mill. b) Specimen contractum. C. coriaceum, durum, transverse rugosum et suleatum ; foramen palii magnum, ovale (uti epipodii margo) linea nigra, marginatum. Long. 12 mill. Testam non vidi sed tactu ut speciminis praecedentis. Hab. ad ins St. Thomas (A. H. Riise et Dr. Hornbeck) St. Vincent (Guilding) Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 8. August 1957. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241 Cette espéce se rapproche beaucoup de I|’A. longicornis* Fér. (Rang Mon. t. XVII fig. 1—4);_ mais la coquille de l’espéce de Guilding est trés differente, de forme étroite et bombée avec la spire infléchie. J’ai vu, en 1854, la coquille de cette espéce sous le nom indiqué, mais non publié & ma connaissance, dans la collection du musée britannique. 8. Although Morch’s description is imperfect by modern standards, the convex suboval shell with persistent spire, the short parapodial lobes joined posteriorly, the delicate tentacles, large oval mantle foramen, margined, together with the parapodia, with black, and the resemblance to A. punctata are sufficient for the identification of the species. Aplysia parvula is the only species of the genus in which the spiral of the shell is retained. 4. The species named Aplysia parvula by Mérch may be conveniently redescribed in modern terminology as follows :— Small or very small Aplysias, with rounded body, typically higher than wide. Skin soft, colour variable—purplish black, dark brown, tan, yellow, greenish grey or green, speckled with white or cream, sometimes with black and orange rims to the mantle foramen, siphon, parapodia, rhinophores, cephalic tentacles and anterior and posterior margins of the foot. Head small, neat, neck long. Foot narrow, pale, with slender pointed tail. Penis broad at the base, tapering. Parapodia short, not very mobile, fused posteriorly high up, closing in the mantle cavity. Mantle thin, with a large oval foramen. Purple glands well developed. Opaline gland simple, multiporous. Shell relatively large, oval or nearly circular, deeply concave, the apex with a distinct spire, anal sinus short and not deep. Typical radular formula 30 x 16.1.16. Rhachidian tooth with characteristically short and deeply incised basal plate and numerous denticulations. The nervous system is primitive in that all the ganglia of the nerve ring are distinct, the pleurovisceral cords are short and the visceral ganglia are separate. 5. We have now to consider the species dubia established by Krauss in 1848 under the name Aplysia spuria. This name was introduced by Krauss in a work in which he enumerated three species of Aplysia from Natal and the Cape area without giving figures of any of them. These species were :— (a) Aplysia maculata Rang (P.S.), 1828 (Hist. nat. Aplysiens : 58) ; (b) a species which Krauss said was very similar to Aplysia maculata Rang but lacked posterior tentacles. This species Krauss called “a spurious Aplysia ’’, giving it the name Aplysia spuria ; * i.e. punctata [intl’d, N.B.E.] 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) a third species which Krauss neither described nor named. ~ 6. The following is Krauss’ description of his nominal species Aplysia spuria :— Extract from Ferdinand Krauss Die Siidafrikanischen Mollusken Stuttgart, 1848 p. 71 J. A. Wahlberg hat noch eine zweite Art mitgebracht, deren Schale vollkommen mit der Abbildung von Rang iibereinstimmt*, aber das Thier ist vorn etwas kiirzer, daher denn auch die Schale in der Mitte liegt, vorn und an den Mantellappen, die etwa den dritten Theil der Schale bedecken und schwarz eingefasst sind, wie gekérnt ; es hat, was die Hauptsache ist, nur zwei vordere kurze stumpfe Fihler, wahrend die hintern nicht zu erkennen sind; es scheinen zwar an der Stelle, wo diese sein sollten, Andeutungen von zwei Griibchen zu sein, doch lasst sich dariiber bei dem einzigen in Weingeist aufbewahrten Exemplar nichts mit Bestimmtheit angeben. Ohne mehrere Exemplare untersucht zu haben, méchte ich desshalb auch keine Diagnose geben ; sollte es sich aber bestitigen, dass es wirklich eine Art ohne oder mit zuriickzeihbaren Fiihlern ist, so méchte ich sie bei der sehr grossen Aehnlichkeit mit A. maculata Rang nicht von diesem Genus getrennt, sondern lieber Aplysia spuria genannt sehen. Der Korper ist 18’” lang, 8’” hoch; die sehr diinne am Rande hornartige Schale 8.5’” lang, 5.5’” breit und 3.4’”’ hoch. An der Natalkiiste. 7. It should be noted that Krauss described the shell of his species Aplysia spuria as corresponding exactly with that of Aplysia maculata Rang, a description which would not be applicable if Krauss’ spuria really represented the same species as that represented by Morch’s parvula. Moreover, posterior rhinophores are present in all species and accordingly Krauss’ spuria cannot properly be called “a spurious Aplysia”. The black edging to the mantle foramen is the only positive character of value given by Krauss, but even this is not diagnostic to the species level. Taking Krauss’ description as a whole, it is impossible to be certain what species he was describing. Four species are known to occur in the area covered by his book and his description might apply to an immature specimen of any three of these (parvula ; maculata ; juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832), though not to the fourth (dactylomela Rang, 1828). Without Krauss’ specimen it is therefore impossible to interpret his nominal species Aplysia spuria. That specimen was at one time in the Stockholm Natural History Museum but Dr. Odhner has informed me that it has disappeared and must be presumed to have been lost. In these circumstances the name Aplysia spuria Krauss must be regarded as a nomen dubium. EEE Eee * ie. Aplysia maculata Rang, 1828 [intl’d N.B.E.] : 7 f — se Se _ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 8. Since the publication by Mérch of the name Aplysia parvula for West Indian specimens, the species has been found in all oceans from about 40° north to 40° south latitude, i.e. it is cireumtropical. It has been recorded from the West Indies, Florida, Madeira, Morocco, West Africa, the Gulf of Aden, Mauritius to the Cape, The East Indies, Japan, China, the South Sea Islands, Australia, New Zealand and California. Since the species has such a wide range it is not surprising that local names have been given to it, e.g., norfolkensis Sowerby, 1869 for specimens from Norfolk Island, off New South Wales. But in most cases it has been possible to check the identification by means of specimens from Museums, or from descriptions and figures in author’s publications. 9. The following authors have used the name Aplysia parvula Morch for this species :— Baba, 1937, 1949, 1952, for Japanese specimens Dall, 1885, for West Indian specimens Dall and Simpson, 1901, for West Indian specimens Engel, 1927, 1936, for West Indian specimens Haas, 1920, for West Indian specimens MacFarland, 1924, for Californian specimens Pilsbry, 1895, copied from Mérch Pruvot-Fol, 1932, systematics of Opisthobranchs Risbec, 1931, a good account of Moroccan specimens Thiele, 1908—16, for West Indian specimens 10. The only author who has applied the name Aplysia spuria Krauss to this species is Macnae (1955). 11. For the reasons set out above I ask the International Commission to afford protection to the well-known and widely used specific name parvula Morch, 1863, as published in the combination Aplysia parvula, from attempts to accord priority over it to the specific name spuria Krauss, 1848, as published in the combination Aplysia spuria, a name which it is impossible to interpret and which has been used only on a single occasion. 12. The detailed action now recommended is that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name spuria Krauss, 1848, as published in the combination Aplysia spuria, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— parvula Mérch, 1863, as published in the combination Aplysia parvula ; (3) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— spuria Krauss, 1848, as published in the combination Aplysia spuria, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1) above. References : Krauss, F., 1848, Die siidafrikanischen Mollusken, Stuttgart : 72 Macnae, W., 1955, ‘‘ On four species of the genus Aplysia common in South Africa ” Ann. Natal Mus. 13(2) : 223—241 Morch, O. A. L., 1863, ‘“‘ Contributions 4 la Faune malacologique des Antilles danoises”” J. Conchyliol. 11 : 21—48 (This volume was also styled ** 3rd Series, Tom. 3 ”’.) SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION REGARDING THE NOMINAL SPECIES “TURDUS MUSICUS ”? LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS AVES) By E. STRESEMANN (Berlin, Germany) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1135) (For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 177—182) (Letter dated 25th June 1957) I beg to inform you that I am strongly in favour of the suppression of Turdus musicus Linnaeus, 1758, and the application of Z'urdus iliacus Linnaeus for the Redwing. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SECURE THAT THE GENERIC NAME “ ANODONTA’’ LAMARCK, 1799 (CLASS PELECYPODA) SHALL BE THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE GENUS CONCERNED (PROPOSED VALIDATION OF A RULING GIVEN IN “ OPINION ”’ 94) By FRITZ HAAS (Curator of Lower Invertebrates, Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1222) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the generic name Gilochidium Rathke, 1797 (Class Pelecypoda), in order thereby to render the well-known generic name Anodonta Lamarck, 1799, the oldest available name for the genus concerned. The present problem came to my notice when preparing the chapter on the Unionacea for the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. When I made a preliminary communication on this subject to the Office of the Commission, I was informed by Mr. Hemming that the matter was even more urgent and important than I had supposed, for the name Anodonta Lamarck had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as long ago as 1926 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 73(4) : 12—13). Mr. Hemming explained that the arrangements for the publication of the Official List in book form are now well advanced and, at his request, I have included in the present application certain additional matters which it is necessary should be dealt with before the Official List is published in the foregoing manner. The facts of this case are set out below. 2. The well-known nominal genus Anodonta Lamarck, 1799, has as its type species by monotypy the nominal species Mytilus cygneus Linnaeus, 1758. As already explained, this generic name has been placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in Opinion 94. The gender of this generic name has been determined by the Commission as the feminine gender by the Ruling given in Direction 42 (1956, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomen. 1 (D) : 153—170). The specific name cygneus Linnaeus, 1758, the specific name of the type species of Anodonta Lamarck, has been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology by a Ruling given in Opinion 336 (1955, loc. cit. 10 : 77—108). 3. Two years prior to the publication of the name Anodonta by Lamarck in 1799, Rathke published an article entitled ““ Om Dam-Muslingen ” (“ Skrivter af Naturhistorie-Selskaber ’’, Copenhague, 4 : 139—179, pls. 8—10). In this paper on page 166 he established a new genus and nominal species to which he gave the names Gilochidium and Glochidium parasiticum respectively. At the Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 8. August 1957. 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature time that he published the above paper Rathke, as is well known, considered that his Glochidium parasiticum was a parasite found in the outer gills of Mylitus anatinus Linnaeus (=Anadonta anatina (Linnaeus)). However, one year later in a second paper on the pond mussel (loc. cit. (2) : 173—185) Rathke realised that his nominal species Glochidiwm parasiticum was no parasite but was the immature stage of Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus. There is, therefore, no doubt whatever that the name Glochidium parasiticum Rathke, 1797, applies to the same species as Mylitus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758, and therefore that the generic name Anodonta Lamarck, 1799, is a junior subjective synonym of the generic name Glochidium Rathke. 4, The generic name Anodonta Lamarck is, however, found in every local fauna and in every textbook of zoology. It has, moreover, been on the Official List without challenge for over 30 years. In the course of over 150 years this name has attained a vast popularity and it would be a manifest contravention of the principles of stability in nomenclature if this name were now to be rejected in favour of the name Glochidiwm Rathke which, as has been explained, has never been used as a generic name since the time of its original publication. The word “‘ Glochidium ”’ is, however, well known as a technical designation for the parasitic larval stage of species of this group and while it would be most confusing now to introduce this name as a generic name, it is desirable that this word should be retained as a technical designation for the stage referred to above. 5. I accordingly now ask the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the generic name Glochidium Rathke, 1797, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonomy. It is desirable, however, that the Commission should give a Ruling that the foregoing action shall not affect the availability of the word * Glochidium ” as a technical designation to denote the parasitic larval stage of species of the genus Anodonta Lamarck, 1799. A Ruling in this sense would follow the precedent set by the Commission by the Ruling given in its Opinion 129 when, after having suppressed the generic name Bipinnaria Sars, 1835, it gave a Ruling that this action left unaffected the use of the term “ Bipinnaria ” as a technical designation to denote developmental stages. 6. The specific name parasiticum Rathke, 1797, as published in the combination Glochidium parasiticum, is junior by many years to its subjective synonym anatinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Mytilus anatinus. Accordingly, it is not proposed that any action should be taken in regard to this name. Under the Completeness-of-Opinion-Rule, I should, however, have asked that the specific name anatinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the above combination should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology if it were not for the fact that, as I am informed by Mr. Hemming, this action has already been taken by the International. Commission by the Ruling given in its Opinion 336. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 7. In addition, there are four Invalid Emendations of the name Anodonta Lamarck, 1799. Of these, one Anodontigenus [Renier], [1804], has, I am informed, already been placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 427. The others, which should now also be placed on the Official Index, are the following : (i) Anodon Oken, 1815 (Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3(1) : 326) (invalid also because published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 417); (ii) Anodontes Cuvier, 1817 (Régne Anim. 2 : 472); (iii) Anodonte Fischer de Waldheim, 1823 (Mém. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 6 : 230). There are also several junior homonyms of Anodonta Lamarck, 1799, but no action requires to be taken in regard to these, as they have, I am informed, already been placed on the Official Index by the Ruling given in Direction 72 (now in the press). 8. For the reasons set out in the present application the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Glochidium Rathke, 1797, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to give a Ruling that the action taken under (1) above shall not affect the availability of the word ‘“‘ Glochidium ”’ as a technical designation to denote the parasitic larval stage of species of the genus Anodonta Lamarck, 1799 ; (3) to confirm the entry of the name Anodonta Lamarck, 1799, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology made by the Ruling given in Opinion 94 ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Glochidiwm Rathke, 1797, as proposed in (1) above to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, the entry so to be made to be endorsed as specified in (2) above ; (b) the under-mentioned Invalid Emendations of Anodonta Lamarck, 1799 :— (i) Anodon, Oken, 1815 (a name invalid also under the Ruling given in Opinion 417) ; (i)) Anodontes Cuvier, 1817 ; (iii) Anodonte Fischer de Waldheim, 1823. 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE APPLICATION OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “ PADI” LINNAEUS, 1758, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ APHIS PADI” TO THE EUROPEAN BIRD CHERRY APHID (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) By J. P. DONCASTER (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1225) It is the purpose of the present application to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to validate the application of the specific name padi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Aphis padi, to the common European Bird Cherry Aphid, in order to preserve a name which is appropriate and in common use, but the application of which in this sense is invalid according to the Rules. 2. The name Aphis padi Linnaeus is, and has been, applied by the majority of aphidologists to the European Bird Cherry Aphid, which, with the exception of one rather rare species, is the only aphid known to use Prunus padus as a primary host in Europe, although, according to the Rules, it would seem to apply to a totally unrelated species, the Mealy Plum Aphid. As the name pruni Geoffroy, 1762, has already been placed on the Official List for the Mealy Plum Aphid (Opinion 397, July, 1956) padi cannot supplant it (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 270, Conclusion 42(1)(b)), but the name padi cannot now be used in any other sense without appropriate action by the Commission. 3. Linnaeus (Syst. Nat. (Ed. 10) 1 : 451) gives the following entry under the heading “ APHIS ” : Padi. 7. A. Pruni Padi, Reaum. ins. 3. t. 23. f. 9. 10. Habitat in Pruno Pado. 4, As Linnaeus did not describe padi and his citation of a host species (Prunus padus) does not, according to Conclusion 21 of the Commission (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 256), in itself constitute an “ indication’’, the aphid can ——_—<_—$—$—$—$——————————————— OOOO LLL —g Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 8. August 1957. oS Fa Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 be identified only from the citation of Réaumur’s figures 9 and 10, which show aphids attacking leaves of plum. It must be accepted that the description in Réaumur’s text (p. 317), relating to these figures is to be identified as the Mealy Plum Aphid, as this has been decided by Opinion 397. But as the reference to Réaumur cited for padi is identical with that cited for pruni, it would therefore appear that padi must, on the same reasoning, also be the Mealy Plum Aphid, unless it is contended that either or both of Réaumur’s figures depict a species different from the one he described, for which there appears to be no valid evidence. Indeed, not only does Réaumur’s description of the Mealy Plum Aphid (p. 317) include a reference to both figures 9 and 10 together, but earlier in his account (p. 296) he seems to imply that these figures illustrate two different sorts of damage caused by the same species. 5. This view, however, was not accepted by Theobald (1927, Aphididae of Gt. Britain 2 : 403) who, though he did not doubt that Réaumur’s figure 9 applied to the Mealy Plum Aphid, considered that figure 10 applied to the unrelated Leaf-curling Plum Aphid and restricted the name padi to the latter. Theobald’s interpretation was followed by many entomologists, who consequently found themselves at variance with other workers ; but, in any case, the divergence of opinion on the identity of Aphis padi Linnaeus would appear to show that, if it is not the Mealy Plum Aphid, it must be considered unidentifiable. 6. The case for validating the name padi for the Bird Cherry Aphid is strong. Not only is the name highly appropriate in that it indicates the only known primary host of the species in Europe, but most authors of major works on aphid systematics have used the name padi in this sense. They include Schrank, who published the first clearly recognisable description of the Bird Cherry Aphid under this name (1801, Fauna Boica 2 : 115), Kaltenbach, Walker, Koch, del Guercio, van der Goot, Mordvilko, Borner and Hille Ris Lambers. The morphology and biology of the Bird Cherry Aphid have been described by Rogerson (1947, Bull. ent. Res. 38(1) : 158), who used the now widely accepted combination Rhopalosiphum padi (Linnaeus). The validation of padi for the Bird Cherry Aphid, therefore, would stabilise a name already well established and about the application of which there is a wide measure of agreement. 7. Although, as already noted, the citation of a host plant unaccompanied by any description does not constitute a valid “ indieation ” under the existing Régles, it cannot be doubted that, when Linnaeus cited Prunus padus as the host for his species Aphis padi, he intended to convey that that name applied to the European Bird Cherry Aphid, since the citation of that host is entirely inappropriate for the species figured by Réaumur on the plate cited by Linnaeus. Thus, a solution on the lines now recommended would not only serve the 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature valuable purpose of stabilising the name for the European Bird Cherry Aphid but would also be in harmony with the intention of Linnaeus, even though under the present Régles he failed to give effect to that intention. 8. For the reasons stated above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to direct that the nominal species Aphis padi Linnaeus, 1758, be interpreted by reference to the description given therefor by Schrank in 1801 (Faun. boic. 2 : 115) ; (2) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— padi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Aphis padi, the entry so to be made to be endorsed that the nominal species so named be interpreted in accordance with the directions given under the Plenary Powers in (1) above. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL BY A. E. ELLIS REGARDING THE | “ VIVIPARUS/PALUDINA’”’ COMPLEX (CLASS GASTROPODA) By MRS. W. S. S. VAN DER FEEN (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, Holland) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 857) (For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 38—43) (Letter, dated 3lst May 1957, communicated by A. E. Ellis) In the first place I have to thank you for your reprint, proposing the stabilisation of the names of the two European Viviparus. I hope it will be accepted in this way, although there will result a lot of confusion with names used by central- European conchologists. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 PROPOSED DETERMINATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES “TEREBRATULA LINEATA’”’? YOUNG & BIRD, 1828 (PHYLUM BRACHIOPODA, CLASS ARTICULATA) By D. V. AGER (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1217) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give directions under its Plenary Powers that the nominal species Terebratula lineata Young & Bird, 1828 (Phylum Brachiopoda) be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated therefor by the present applicant in 1956 (Ager (D.V.), 1956 : 40). 2. The nominal species Terebratula lineata Young & Bird, 1828 (: 232, pl. vii, fig. 10) was stated in the original description to be ‘‘ very common in the ironstone bands, and in the dogger ” of the Jurassic rocks on the Yorkshire coast. The single specimen that was originally illustrated, and which therefore must be the holotype, cannot be found in any of the Yorkshire museums or in any of the other major collections of British Jurassic brachiopods. It is therefore presumed lost. 8. The nominal species Terebratula bidens Phillips, 1829, was proposed a year later (: 162, pl. xiii, fig. 24), though the author apparently accepted in his faunal list (op. cit. : 162) that this was in fact the same as Young & Bird’s lineata. T'. bidens was described as coming from the Ironstone Series of the Yorkshire Lias, as was another species described at the same time—Terebratula triplicata Phillips, 1829 (: 162, pl. xiii, fig. 22). The latter only differs from 7’. bidens in the possession of an extra costa in the fold of the brachial valve. This is a trivial difference and any collection shows both variants freely associated and inseparable by other means. 4. Three names have therefore been in common usage for what appears to be almost certainly the same species. The nominal species 7’. lineata Young & Bird has a priority of one year over 7’. bidens and T’. triplicata Phillips. These latter are only subjective synonyms, but the closeness of the relationship has been recognised by most authors (e.g. Davidson, 1852). The form (or forms) Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 8. August 1957. 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature concerned is very common in the Ironstone Series of the Middle Lias (spinatum Zone) on the Yorkshire coast. It is well-known and is well represented in collections, but its importance has been overlooked due to the original confusion of names and subsequent complications not relevant to the present discussion. The present author has found the form to be of stratigraphical value (Ager, 1956 : 40—41). 5. The holotypes of 7. bidens and T. triplicata are not now preserved in the York Museum (where they were said by Phillips to be deposited) they are not with other Phillips material at Oxford and they have not been noted elsewhere. Sherborn (1940 : 107) recorded the unusual circumstances in which some of Phillips’ collection was dropped into the Thames at Blackfriars Bridge, and this may have been the fate of these specimens. They may therefore be presumed lost. 6. 7. lineata Young & Bird was referred to the genus Rhynchonella by Tate (1876) as were Phillips’ two species by Davidson (1852). Buckman placed lineata provisionally in his new genus Rhynchonelloidea (1918 : 39) and the present author has confirmed this attribution (Ager, 1956 : 40). 7. Though the original figure was very poor and the description insufficient, these are enough to define the species. The specimen designated as neotype by the present author agrees with what is known of the lost holotype. It was collected personally from the thin bed of shale immediately above the basal ironstone band in the Pecten Seam (spinatum Zone) of the Yorkshire Ironstone Series, in the cliff section just south-east of Staithes. It was described and figured by the author in 1956 (Ager, 1956 : 40—43, pl. iii, figs. 6 a—c). It was presented to the British Museum (Natural History) which has proper facilities for preserving type specimens and which gives research students access to its — collections. The following are attached to the specimen :— (1) Green spot. (2) Yellow number-label BB 14882, the official registration number of the specimen. (3) The number J 1013/1 written in indian ink, this being the writer’s own number for the specimen. 8. Accompanying the specimens are the following labels :— (1) Neotype. Rhynchonelloidea lineata (Young & Bird). Middle Lias (spinatum Zone). Cliff section, S.E. of Staithes, Yorkshire. Dr. D. V. Ager coll., Oct. 1955. BB.14882. Figd. Ager, D.V. Mon. Pal. Soc. 1956 vol. 110 pl. III figs. 6 a—c. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 (2) Rhynchonelloidea lineata (Young & Bird). Neotype. Thin bed of shale immediately above the basal ironstone band in the Pecten Seam (spinatum Zone). Cliff section, south-east of Staithes, Yorkshire. DVA collection (J.1013/1). To be figured in monograph. BB.14882. 9. The purpose of designating a neotype in this instance was to stabilise the usage of the binomen Rhynchonelloidea lineata (Young & Bird) which refers to a well-known form of stratigraphical value. The specific name in question is the oldest one available. 10. The International Commission is therefore requested to use its Plenary Powers :— (1) to give directions under its Plenary Powers that the nominal species. Terebratula lineata Young & Bird, 1828, be interpreted by reference to the specimen designated and figured as the neotype of that species by the present applicant in 1956 (: pl. iii, figs. 6 a—c). (2) to place the undermentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: lineata Young & Bird, 1828, as published in the combination Terebratula lineata, interpreted as specified in (1) above. References : Ager, D. V., 1956, ““ A monograph of the British Liassic Rhynchonellidae ”’ pt. i, Palaeont. Soc. 110 Buckman, 8. 8., 1918, “The Brachiopoda of the Namyau Beds, Northern Shan States, Burma” Palaeont. indica (n.s.) 3 (No. 2) (1917) Davidson, T., 1852, ‘“ A monograph of the British fossil Brachiopoda ” vol. I, Pt. iii, Palaeont. Soc. Sherborn, C.D., 1940, “ Where is the —— collection ?’”’ Cambridge Tate, R., 1876, “ Class Palliobranchiata ”’ in Tate & Blake, The Yorkshire Lias London Young, G. & Bird, J., 1828, A geological survey of the Yorkshire coast. Ed. 2, Whitby 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED DETERMINATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMINAL SPECIES ‘““ RHYNCHONELLA SUBCONCINNA ”’ DAVIDSON, 1852 (PHYLUM BRACHIOPODA, CLASS ARTICULATA) By D. V. AGER (Imperial College of Science and Technology, London) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1218) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give directions under its Plenary Powers that the nominal species Rhynchonella subconcinna Davidson, 1852 (Phylum Brachiopoda) be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated therefor by the present applicant in 1956 (Ager (D.V.), 1956 : 10). 2. The nominal species Rhynchonella subconcinna Davidson, 1852 (: 90, pl. xvii, fig. 17) was described from a single specimen (which is therefore the holotype) from the Marlstone Rock-bed (spinatwm Zone) in the Lower Jurassic of Ilminster, Somerset. The holotype, which was said to be from the collection of Charles Moore, is not preserved in the Davidson collection at the British Museum (Natural History) or in the Moore collection, now at the City Museum, Bristol. It has not been observed in any of the major British collections of Lower Jurassic brachiopods. It is therefore presumed lost. 3. There appears to be no doubt that the nominal species Rhynchonella fodinalis Tate, 1876 (: 424, pl. xv, figs. 16, 16a) is a synonym of Davidson’s species. The type-specimens of the former are preserved in the Geological Survey Museum (Registration Numbers 28628—9) and differ in no appreciable manner from the neotype designated by the present author. 4, The two names R. subconcinna and R. fodinalis have been used extensively in literature, though the synonymy was suspected at an early date by Davidson (1878 : 207). This confusion has resulted mainly from the fact that the two names were originally applied to forms at opposite ends of the English Lower Jurassic outcrop, R. subconcinna from Somerset and R. fodinalis from York- shire. The situation has been further aggravated by the action of Buckman, (1918 : 43, 59) in referring R. fodinalis to the genus Quadratirhynchia Buckman, Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 8. August 1957. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 1914, and R. subconcinna provisionally to the genus Fureirhynchia Buckman, 1914. The present author (Ager, 1956: 10) regards the two forms as Synonymous and as referable to the genus T'etrarhynchia Buckman, 1917. 5. R. subconcinna is a somewhat generalised form, lacking in distinctive characters, and the name has been carelessly applied by various authors to forms of various ages having no connection with the original. 6. Though the synonymy referred to in paragraph 4 is purely subjective, it is considered desirable that the name having priority should be firmly established. The synonymy was in fact recognised by J. F. Walker on the label of the specimen selected as neotype (see paragraph 8 below). 7. The specimen designated as neotype by the present author in 1956 agrees with what is known of the lost holotype. It comes from the Marlstone Rock-bed at South Petherton in Somerset, immediately adjacent to the type locality of Ilminster. It closely resembles Davidson’s original figures and some poorly-preserved specimens labelled with the same name in the Charles Moore collection at Bristol (mentioned above). The neotype was described and figured by the present author (Ager, D. V., 1956 ; 10—12, pl. i, figs. 5 a—e). It is preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) which has proper facilities for preserving type specimens and which gives research workers access to its collections. The following are attached to the specimen :— (1) Green spot. (2) Yellow number-label B 33239, the official registration number of the specimen. (3) White label: “ S.Pth.” (=South Petherton, the locality at which the specimen was found). 8. Accompanying the specimen are the following labels :— (1) Rhyn. sub-concinna M. Lias South Petherton Ilminster. (2) Written on the pill box containing the specimen : B 33239 Rhynchonella subconcinna Dav. R. Fodinalis Tate Mid Lias South Petherton Ilminster. (3) NEOTYPE. Tetrarhynchia subconcinna (Dav.) B 33239. Figd. Ager, D.V. Mon. Pal. Soc. 1956 vol. 110 pl. I figs. 5 a—e. 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9. The purpose of designating a neotype in this instance was to stabilise the usage of the binomen Tetrarhynchia subconcinna (Davidson). The specific name in question is the oldest available name and has enjoyed uninterrupted usage since its first publication. 10. The International Commission is therefore requested to use its Plenary Powers :— (1) to give directions that the nominal species Rhynchonella subconcinna Davidson, 1852, be interpreted by reference to the specimen designated and figured as the neotype of that species by the present applicant in 1956 (: pl. 1, figs. 5a—e). (2) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Last of Specific Names in Zoology: subconcinna Davidson, 1852, as published in the combination Rhynchonella subconcinna, interpreted as specified in (1) above. References : Ager, D. V., 1956, “‘ A monograph of the British Liassic Rhynchonellidae ” pt. i, Palaeont. Soc. 110 Buckman, 8S. S., 1918, “The Brachiopoda of the Namyau Beds, Northern Shan States, Burma ” Palacont. indica (n.s.), 3 (No. 2) (1917) Davidson, T., 1852, ““ A monograph of the British fossil Brachiopoda ” vol. 1, pt. iii, Palaeont. Soc. Davidson, T., 1878, Ibid vol. 4, pt. ii Tate, R., 1876, “Class Palliobranchiata ” in Tate & Blake, The Yorkshire Inas London Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 257 PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “ ANONYMA ” LEWIS (W.A.), 1872, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ LIMENITIS ANONYMA ”’ (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) and N. D. RILEY, C.B.E. (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1180) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take such action as may be necessary to make it clear that the name anonyma Lewis (W.A.), 1872, as published in the combination Limenitis anonyma (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) possesses no status of availability in zoological nomenclature. For the reasons given below we are of the opinion that the above name and also the name Neptis innominata introduced in the same paper were published as an ironical protest against various changes which had recently been introduced in the nomenclature of the European butterflies, that they were not seriously put forward for use for the species concerned and therefore that they are already invalid under a decision by the Copenhagen (1953) Congress discussed later in the present paper. The circumstances of this case are set out below. 2. The names referred to above were published in 1872 (The Zoologist (2)(7) : 3074—3075) in a paper entitled ‘“‘ New Names for European Butterflies ” written by an author named W. A. Lewis. Both names appeared on page 3074. 3. Lewis’ paper started with the following sentence: “The following corrections of synonymy appear to be rendered necessary by Dr. Staudinger’s ‘Catalog der Lepidopteren’ (1871), and Mr. W. F. Kirby’s ‘ Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera ’ (1871) ”’. This is followed by the names quoted above, to each of which was attached the word “ mihi”. No descriptions were given Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 8. August 1957. 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature for the new nominal species so established, the “indications”? provided consisting of bibliographical references to names published by previous authors for the species concerned. Lewis’ note was then brought to a close by the following sentence :—‘‘I propose to take an early opportunity of explaining these ‘ reforms ’ and of commenting upon the others (to the number of several dozens) now imminent. There appears a good prospect that we shall very soon have a quite new and really serviceable nomenclature ”’. 4. Lewis never published his promised explanation and the paper discussed above is fortunately his only venture into the field of zoological nomenclature. 5. Viewed superficially, Lewis’ paper has at first sight the appearance of being a serious contribution to the subject, but closer inspection leaves no doubt in our mind that in fact it was not. In particular we are led to this conclusion by the following considerations : (1) The paper was written shortly after the publication of Staudinger’s (1870) and Kirby’s (1871) Catalogues, both of which had been severely criticised for the number of changes in current nomenclature introduced. If Lewis had been a specialist in this group of insects and had held views similar to that of the authors referred to above, he might well have thought it desirable to introduce further changes, but, as he was not such a specialist, it seems much more likely that he was one of those entomologists who objected to the changes introduced by Staudinger and Kirby respectively and that his purpose in writing the paper under consideration was to protest against, and to ridicule, the policy of name-changing adopted by the above authors. (2) That this was Lewis’ intention seems to be strongly supported by the equivocal wording of the concluding sentence of his paper (quoted in paragraph 3 above). For if this was not his attitude why should he have placed in inverted commas the word “ reforms ”’ when describing the action taken by himself in his paper? This action of his seems inexplicable if he really considered that the introduction of the new names published in his paper represented a reform. If he had genuinely considered these names necessary, why should he have thought it necessary to promise an explanation of his reasons for bringing them forward. The remark that the introduction of these names, coupled with the promised introduction of other new names ‘‘ to the number of several dozens ’’ would very soon lead to “a quite new and really serviceable nomenclature ’’ seems to be meaningless on any assumption other than that he was writing ironically and that in fact he was strongly opposed to the changing of well-established names. (3) These conclusions appear to us to be greatly strengthened by the choice by Lewis of the words ‘“‘ anonyma”’ and “‘ innominata”’ as the new specific names which he was then introducing, for it seems to us impossible to believe that the adoption of these words as specific names could be regarded by anyone as being calculated to promote “a really serviceable nomenclature ”’. > Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 6. We are of the opinion therefore that the two names discussed above were introduced by Lewis as a protest against the recent action by Staudinger and Kirby in changing well-known names and that these two objectionable—and indeed ridiculous—names were not seriously put forward for use for the species concerned. If, as we believe, this is the correct interpretation of Lewis’ paper, the names anonyma Lewis and innominata Lewis, as ““ names published for some purpose other than for use in zoological nomenclature ” fall within the scope of the provision on this subject inserted in the Régles by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (see 1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 63, Decision 114) and possess no status in zoological nomenclature. We recognise, however, that it is sometimes difficult to determine with certainty whether a given paper is written seriously or whether it was composed in a spirit of irony or sarcasm. Moreover, even when the intention of a paper is clearly ironical to one reader, it may not appear so to another. In particular, an ironical intention in a paper, though clear to readers in whose native tongue the paper was written may not be so clear, and may not be clear at all, to readers whose native tongue is some other language. While adhering to our interpretation of Lewis’ paper, we conclude therefore that this is a case where the Copenhagen decision referred to above is incapable of providing a definite and final decision. That situations of this kind might be expected to arise was indeed anticipated by the Copenhagen Congress, for in the concluding section of the Decision referred to above it laid down that “‘ any case where it is not clear whether the name in question was intended for use in zoological nomenclature should be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision”. It is in accordance with this provision that we now bring this case before the Commission. In view of the difficulties which, as we have explained, are sometimes involved in determining whether or not a given name was “ published for some purpose other than for use in zoological nomenclature ’’, we do not ask the Commission to pronounce upon Lewis’ two names from this point of view. One of those names is (as we shall show) already objectively invalid for other reasons, while as regards the other our only object is to prevent its becoming the oldest available name for the species concerned. This being so, we consider that the simplest and most practical course will be to ask the International Commission to suppress the name concerned (anonyma Lewis) under its Plenary Powers, without reference to the question whether or not that name is already invalid under the Copenhagen decision discussed above. (a) The species of “ Limenitis ’’ involved 7. In order to appreciate the position—from the taxonomic point of view— of the name anonyma Lewis, 1872, as published in the combination Limenitis anonyma, it is necessary briefly to recall the chequered history of the nomenclature employed for the two small European species of the genus Limenitis Fabricius involved in this case. One of these species occurs in England, where it is known as “ The White Admiral”; the second has a 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature more southerly distribution in Europe and does not extend as far as England. We may refer to these species as Species “ A ” and Species “‘ B”’ respectively. The first name to be given to either species was Papilio camilla Linnaeus, 1763 (Mus. Lud. Ulr. : 304). This name, as is now known, applies to Species “A”. Shortly after its publication this name was abandoned by Linnaeus who in 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 781) renamed Species “A” Papilio sibilla. The first authors to deal simultaneously both with Species “A” and . with Species “‘B” were Denis & Schiffermiiller (1775, Ankiind. syst. Werk. Schmett. Wien. Gegend : 172) who used the specific name sibilla Linnaeus (in the incorrect form sibylla) for Species “ A” and applied to Species “B” the name camilla which they treated as a new name. This arrangement continued in use until the early years of the present century, when a change was necessitated by the revival of the specific name camilla Linnaeus, 1763, which for so long had been so strangely neglected. The change so introduced marked a sharp break in historical continuity, for it involved not only the attribution of the name camilla to Linnaeus instead of to Denis & Schiffermiiller but also—and much more serious—the transfer of the name camilla from Species “B” to Species “A”. This made it necessary to provide another name for Species “B”. The oldest available name for that species was then believed to be the name rivularis Scopoli, 1763 (Ent. carn. : 165), as published in the combination Papilio rivularis. This was not a very satisfactory name, as by some authors (e.g. Werneburg, 1864, Beitr. SchmettK. 1 : 389) it had been identified with the species then known as Neptis lucilla (Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775). At the time in question it was, however, considered that this name applied to Species “‘ B ” and it was accordingly then introduced for that species. Thereafter for the next twenty-five years the name rivularis Scopoli was in general use for Species “B”. A further break, however, occurred in 1933 when Higgins (Proc. ent. Soc. Lond. 7 : 60, fig. 1 (facsimile of fig. 443 by Scopoli of Pap. rivularis) demonstrated that Werneburg had been correct when he synonymised the name rivularis Scopoli with the Neptis species described in 1775 by Denis & Schiffermiiller as Papilio lucilla. Copies of Scopoli’s Ent. carn. almost invariably lack the plates which are extremely scarce. A copy containing the plates had, however, been examined by Higgins who had found that Scopoli’s figure (fig. 443) of his Papilio rivularis represented unmistakably a specimen of the species known as Neptis lucilla. That figure was taken by Higgins as the standard of reference for the interpretation of Papilio rivularis Scopoli, and thus became the lectotype for that species. Higgins (: 61) provided the Austrian subspecies of Species ““B” with a name, calling it Limenitis schiffermulleri, which he based upon Papilio camilla [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, to which reference has been made above. The question of the name to be used for Species ““B”’ as a whole remained, however, unsettled at that time, it being necessary to carry out a search of the literature in order to determine what was the oldest available name for any of the taxa subjectively associated with Species ‘“‘B”’ as subspecies. This search was conducted as rapidly as possible and in the following year it was shown (Hemming, 1934, Entomologist 67 : 2) that the oldest available name was reducta Staudinger, 1901, which was thereupon introduced for Species “B”’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261 The name reducta which was published in the combination Limenitis camilla Schiff. var reducta, was a name proposed by Staudinger (1901, in Staudinger & Rebel, Cat. Lepid. pal. Faunengeb. 1 : 22) for the subspecies of Species ““B” occurring in Southern Armenia and Northern Persia. _ 8. We consider it important that there should be no further disturbance in the name to be used for Species “‘ B ” and we are of the opinion that such a disturbance would be particularly objectionable if it were to be occasioned by the introduction of the long-forgotten name anonyma Lewis, 1872, which moreover, as we have explained, we hold to be already objectively invalid and therefore unavailable for use in zoological nomenclature. Fortunately, the name anonyma has thus far been employed by only two authors in works of a general character (Verity, 1950 (Farfalle diurne d'Italia 4) ; 1952 (Var. géogr. sais. Pap. diurn. France 2) ; Forster, 1955 (Die Schmett. Mittelewrop. 2)) and has not had time to come into any general use, being still unknown to most workers. The moment is therefore very opportune for its suppression under the Plenary Powers. This is the course which we recommend for the con- sideration of the International Commission. As part of this proposal we ask that the name anonyma Lewis, suppressed as proposed, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Under the Completeness-of-Opinions Rule the specific name camilla [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775 (Papilio) (as a junior homonym of camilla Linnaeus, 1763 (Papilio)) should be placed on the same Index, while the following names should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) camilla Linnaeus, 1763 (Papilio) [oldest available specific name for Species “ A ”’]; (b) reducta Staudinger, 1901 (Limenitis camilla Schiff. var.) [oldest available specific name for Species “B”’]; (c) schiffermullert Higgins, 1933 (Limenitis) [oldest available name for the Central European subspecies of Species ‘“‘ B”’, being based upon the invalid name Papilio camilla [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775] ; (d) rivularis Scopoli, 1763 (Papilio), as defined by the lectotype selected by Higgins (1933) [oldest available specific name for the Neptis species formerly known by the later name Nepiis lucilla (([Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775)]. (b) The species of “‘ Neptis ’’ involved 9. The species of the genus Neptis Fabricius involved in the present case is the species which (as explained in paragraph 7 above) was for long known as Neptis lucilla ([Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775) but which, as Higgins (1933) showed was first named as Papilio rivularis by Scopoli in 1763. Lewis in the paper with which we are here concerned rejected the name lucilla [Denis & Schiffermiiller] as a “n. Cat.”, meaning presumably that he regarded it as having been a nomen nudum as introduced by those authors, and, believing it to be without a valid name, gave it the name Neptis innominata. The name so given would have been superfluous, even if Lewis had been correct in rejecting the name lucilla [Denis & Schiffermiiller], for it would have been a junior subjective synonym of the name rivularis Scopoli, 1763. Contrary to the view expressed by Lewis, the name lucilla Schiffermiiller though only very briefly 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature described, is not a nomen nudum and therefore possesses the status of availability. Accordingly, the name innominata Lewis is not only a junior subjective synonym of rivularis Scopoli but is in addition a junior objective synonym of lucilla [Denis & Schiffermiiller]. It is thus an objectively invalid name, quite apart from the question whether or not it was seriously published as a name for use in zoological nomenclature, a subject on which we have expressed our view earlier in the present paper. In the circumstances the only action required is to place the name innominata Lewis, 1872, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, for the necessary counterpart action, namely the addition of the specific name rivularis Scopoli, 1763, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, has already been recommended in paragraph 8 above. Recommendations 10. For the reasons set out in the present application the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name anonyma Lewis, 1872, as published in the combination Limenitis anonyma, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) camilla Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the combination Papilio camilla ; (b) reducta Staudinger, 1901, as published in the combination LTimenitis camilla Schiff. var. reducta ; (c) schiffermullert Higgins, 1933, as published in the combination Limenitis schiffermullerc ; (d) rivularis Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Papilio rivularis, as interpreted by the lectotype selected by Higgins (1933) (fig. 443 published by Scopoli) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) anonyma Lewis, 1872, as published in the combination Limenitis anonyma, as proposed in (1) above to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 (b) camilla [Denis & Schiffermiiller,] 1775, as published in the combination Papilio camilla (a junior homonym of camiila Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the combination Papilio camilla); (c) innominata Lewis, 1872, as published in the combination Neptis imnominata (a junior objective synonym of lucilla [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, as published in the combination Papilio lucilla). SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE GENERIC NAMES ‘“CHRYSOPHANUS’’ AND “BITHYS’’, BOTH OF HUBNER, 1818 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) By JEAN BOURGOGNE (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 802) (Letter dated 17th June 1957) (For the application here referred to see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 13—21) Vous avez été trés aimable de m’adresser les separata de vos études sur les noms de genre, Chrysophanus et Bithys, et je vous en remercie. Le temps m’a malheureusement manqué pour examiner ces questions de prés, sinon je vous aurais écrit & ce sujet. Mais ma compétence en matiére de nomen- clature est assez faible de sorte que mon opinion n’a pas une grande valeur. Je vous dirai simplement que j’approuve vos efforts faits en vue d’éviter de nouveaux bouleversements dans la nomenclature et pense que c’est dans ce sens que les decisions doivent étre prises, si c’est possible lorsqu’il s’agit de noms constamment employés. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ TOXORHYNCHITES ’’ THEOBALD, 1901 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By ERNESTINE B. THURMAN (Dept. of Entomology, University of Maryland, Maryland, U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1166) (For the application here referred to see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 128—131) (Letter dated 7th June 1957) This is to report that I concur with the opinions as stated by Dr. Alan Stone and Dr. Kenneth L. Knight dealing with the genus Toxorhynchites Theobald, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSALS OF C. E. TOTTENHAM FOR THE EMENDATION TO “ ERYTHROPTERUS ”’ OF THE SPECIFIC NAME ““ERYTROPTERUS *? LINNAEUS, 1758 (“ STAPHYLINUS ”’’) (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA), AND TO THE PROPOSAL OF PIERRE BONNET FOR THE EMENDATION TO “ THERIDIUM ”’ OF THE GENERIC NAME “THERIDION ’? WALCKENAER, 1805 (CLASS ARACHNIDA) By ERICH M. HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitadt zu Berlin) (Commission References : Z.N.(S.) 242, 1008) (For the proposals in these cases see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 84—88 ; 96—97) (Statement received 23rd April 1957) Es war ein begriissenswerter Fortschritt, als die ‘‘ Copenhagen Decisions ”’ im Gegensatz zu der nicht so strengen Formulierung der Régles die Méglichkeiten der Emendation zoologischer Namen noch stiarker eingeschrankt hatten. Besonders wichtig war dabei der Paragraph 71, der in (1)(a)(I) festlegte, dass ein Irrtum der Transliteration in das lateinische Alphabet kein Recht gibt, die Original-Schreib- weise eines Namens zu andern. In den Sitzungen des Colloquiums, die zur Formulierung der C. D. gefiihrt haben, war immer wieder der richtige Gedanke augedeutet worden, dass philologische Erwagungen erst in zweiter Linie fiir Aender- ungen der Schreibweise zoologischer Namen herangezogen werden sollten. Wie unbedenklich auf anderen Geistesgebieten in dieser Hinsicht vorgegangen wird, zeight eine auch nur fliichtige Betrachtung der Bildung der allgemein anerkannten Termini in der Medizin. Wollte jeder Spezialist auf seinem Gebiet die durch falsche Transcription oder Transliteration gebildeten Namen zur Genehmigung der Emendation der International Commission vorschlagen, so bliebe dieser zur Erledigung wichtiger Aufgaben iiberhaupt keine Zeit mehr, denn: die Zahl der falsch gebildeten Namen ist Legion! Es kommt hinzu, dass in gewissen Fallen auch verschiedene Klassiker verschiedene Schreibweisen angewendet haben, und dass auch der Philologe manchmal mehr als eine Schreibweise als richtig anerkennen muss. Wie viele Namen, die aus dem Griechischen stammen, sind mit der Original-Endung “ -on ” beibehalten worden. Es erscheint nicht statthaft, von ihnen nun nur eine oder mehrere, wie Theridion zu Theridium, zu emendieren, wahrend andere Namen mit der gleichen Endung unveriindert bleiben. Dem sprachlich Gebildeten sehen die zahlreichen Namen mit der Endung “ -ptertz”’ ebenso abscheulich aus wie etwa *‘ erytropterus’’. Wenn aber einige Spezialisten auf ihrem Gebiete Aenderungen herbeifiihren lassen, die anderen nicht, kommt es in kurzer Zeit zu einem Wirrwarr, in dem sich niemand mehr zurechtfindet. Bleibt es beim strikten Verbot der Emendation, und ist die Kommission konsequent, braucht man nur die Original- Beschreibung nachzuschlagen, um zu wissen, wie ein Name richtig zu schreiben ist. Im anderen Falle muss die grosse, dauernd noch steigende Zahl der veréffentlichten Opinions durchgesehen werden, wenn man Sicherheit iiber eine Schreibweise haben will, das bedeutet eine grosse Erschwerung der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Durch solch eine Durchlécherung des Emendation-Verbotes gelangt die rein philologisch motivierte Emendation durch die Hintertiir der Kommissions-Entscheidung wieder zu der Stellung, die ihr durch § 71 ff, der C.D. entzogen werden sollte. Die Kommission hat in friiheren Opinions in 4 Jahrzehnten nur 12 Emendationen genehmigt, im Marzheft des ‘“‘ Bulletin’? werden deren gleichzeitig schon 3 vorgeschlagen! Es sei der Kommission bei der Behandlung aller Emendation- Vorschlige zugerufen: ‘‘ Landgraf, werde hart!” Die International Commission mége aus den angezeigten Griinden die drei im Titel genannten Vorschlage ablehnen. @ WHbsnee > °c. iJ 3 9 AUG 1957 CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) (a) New Applications Page Proposed adoption of a Declaration on the question whether adjectival specific names consisting of not fully Latinised words should be treated, under Article 14 of the Régles, as consisting of “barbarous” words and therefore as being exempt from change in gender (Francis Hemming) .. eee = | Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the specific name parvula Morch, 1863 org roe ageoesds) & B. Eales) : 240 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to secure that the generic name Anodonta Lamarck, 1799, shall be the oldest available name for the genus concerned (Class Pelecypoda) (F. Haas).. 245 Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the application of the specific name padi Linnaeus, 1758 (Aphis) to the European Bird Cherry ae Sone Insecta, Order ers) (J. P. Doncaster) .. 248 Proposed determination under the Plenary Powers of the interpreta- tion of the nominal species Terebratula lineata Young & Bird, 1828 (Phylum Brachiopoda, Class Articulata) (D. V. Ager) .. 251 Proposed determination under the Plenary Powers of the inter- pretation of the nominal species Rhynchonella subconcinna Davidson, 1852 (Phylum Brachiopoda, Class Articulata) (D. V. Ager) ie La a S. Se ahs -- 264 Proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the specific name anonyma Lewis, 1872 cane) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Francis Hemming & N. D age as 5 SBT to45 ‘ é eo) -? be P > ~ #5 tH . « G - ¥ ae ee as uf , . ay : o oe ise an 4 i h ; A Reh oe = (Conn fom inside back wrapper) Lee sins Linnaeus, 1758 (Turdua) (Clase Aves) (proposal > Pes oye _E. Mayr & 0. Vaurie) St E, Strosem zn % rss, Rass eyes udina Cae Gabte ae seis ea ‘Snort re rae ean ss ‘, i ’ ; ' e. Chrysophanus and Bith Soli ah Hiibner, 1818 (Class Insecta, ide “anes Order | 5) (osoponal hy pcos at ee . DE. “support hyd Bouse Re age 263 | Sa ok hynchit Theobald, 1 (Class Insecta, Class Di (propose i A Roe Re ae ae eet ED i a ae to, of the pin 2 name erytropterus Seer ok ae Ai fy sak as 2 1758 (Si inus) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) peeeso Ce hi se 1 by C. E. volts a and Theridiwm, emendation to, Aen eo es generic name Theridion Walckenaer, 1805 (Class Arach- AE eet hid) erly Bonnet) : objection by E. M. Hering .. 264 2 IMPORTANT NOTICE TO NEW SUBSCRIBERS — Attention is drawn to the work “ Opinions and Declarations rendered by pe Satur ong Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ’’, in which are the decisions taken by the International Commission on applications ae sspabinle Mie ren Nomenclature ’’. This work is issued Parts as soon as possible after decisions have been taken on individual cases. is an indispensable work of reference for all Institutions concerned with Sate oe en Fall pees ee eae Publications Officer, Internatio Trust for Zoological Romeneharate, Ae % te Bernt: Gate, London, S.W.7. Printed in England by ‘METcALFE. & Coorzr Luurzp, 10-24 Scrutton Sty London E C2 4 9c 195) VOLUME 13. Part 9 pp. 265—296 THE BULLETIN NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON HAweD 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 by voting on a sreiuae eae in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ; Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on eons Nomenclature of its pane Powers in certain cases . : ; Per ae a ae LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1957 Price One Pound (All rights reserved) 30th September 1957 OF ZOOLOGICAL Page 265 265 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoolvgical Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis Hnmmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) 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) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmusewm van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Caprera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemmrne (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemcus (Universitetets Zoologiske Musewm, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritxy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwsxr (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herre (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amanat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxgs (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanx6é (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Sroxt (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SytvesteR-BRraDbey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hotruuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Miter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doe. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. William Ktunett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. 8S. BopENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetis, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TortonesE (Museo di Storia Naturale “ G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) Ee A SL eee ~ t CCT 195/ BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE | a ee Volume 13, Part 9 (pp. 265—296) 30th September 1957 ea I 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 ”? Notice is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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. 13, Part 9) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing, and in duplicate, 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 Notice 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 cases :— (1) Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828, validation of (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata) (Z.N.(S.) 399) ; (2) Pentila Westwood, [1851], validation of, and designation for, and for Liptena Westwood, [1851], of type species, in harmony with accustomed usage (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Z.N.(S.) 476) ; 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (3) Centris Fabricius, 1804, designation of a type species for, in harmony with accustomed usage ; dimidiata Fabricius, 1793 (Apis), validation of (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Z.N.(S.) 770) ; (4) adspersus Rathke, 1837 (Palaemon), protection of (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (Z.N.(S.) 446). 2. Attention is also drawn to the proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the question whether in the case of a zoological name in which two adjacent vowels constitute separate syllables a symbol signifying the diaeresis should under Article 20 be placed over the second of the vowels concerned (Z.N.(S.) 1013). 3. 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. 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 serial publications Nature and Science. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 30th September 1957. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE THE GENERIC NAME “ PHRYNOSOMA’”’ WIEGMANN, 1828 (CLASS REPTILIA, ORDER SQUAMATA), A NAME PLACED ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY’? BY THE RULING GIVEN IN “ OPINION ’? 92 By HOBART M. SMITH (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 399) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the generic name Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828 (Class Reptilia). This seems to me to be important for two reasons: First, this name was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology thirty years ago by the Ruling given in the Commission’s Opinion 92 (1926, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 4) : 3-4). Second, there is associated with this generic name a considerable literature of an anatomical, histological and ecological nature as well as of a taxonomic character. The facts bearing on this case are set out below. 2. The nominal genus Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828 (Isis (Oken) 1828 : 367) was established with three included nominal species but with no designated or indicated type species. From these included species the first to be selected as the type species of this genus was Lacerta orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 206), that species having been so selected by Fitzinger in 1843 (Syst. Rept.: 17). At this point it will be convenient to deal with a question connected with the interpretation of the above nominal species which needs to be cleared out of the way before consideration is given to the senior synonyms of the generic name Phrynosoma Wiegmann. It must be noted that, when in 1758 Linnaeus established this nominal species, he supplemented the short Latin diagnosis provided by citing references to Seba (: pl. 83, figs. 1, 2) and to Hernandez. He gave the locality for this species as Mexico. To the species in the genus Lacerta standing immediately before L. orbicularis, Linnaeus then gave the name Lacerta hispida (: 205-206), for which he cited two references, the first, to his own work the Museum Adolphi Friderici, the second to Seba. In the case of Seba, Linnaeus cited two plates, first, Seba’s pl. 109, fig. 6, second, Seba’s pl. 83, figs. 1, 2. It will be seen therefore that already by this date Linnaeus’ ideas about his species Lacerta orbicularis were Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 9. September 1957. 268 ° Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature confused, as the figures of Seba’s on which he largely based that species were also cited by him as part of the basis for the preceding nominal species to which he then gave the name Lacerta hispida. This confusion was greatly increased by Linnaeus’ treatment of the subject in 1766 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(1) : 365, 366). On this occasion Linnaeus suppressed all reference to Lacerta hispida as such and transferred to Lacerta orbicularis the bibliographical references which in 1758 he had cited under the name Lacerta hispida. He seems, however, to have recognised that this was not a very natural arrangement, for he divided Lacerta orbicularis into two “ varieties ”’ ; for the first, which he called var. «, he cited the references which in 1758 he had cited under the name Lacerta hispida; for the second, which he called var. 8, he cited the references which in 1758 he had cited for L. orbicularis, adding at the same time the reference “ Syst. nat. 10. p. 206. nm. 24”, ie. a reference to his own L. orbicularis of 1758. By the foregoing treatment Linnaeus in 1766 perpetuated the confusion into which he had fallen in 1758, by citing Seba’s plate 83, figs. 1, 2, both under var. « and under var. B, the “varieties”? into which he now divided the nominal species Lacerta orbicularis. For practical purposes this matter was put straight by Laurenti in 1768 (Specimen med. : 51), when he restricted Seba’s pl. 83, figs. 1 and 2 to Lacerta orbicularis and that author’s plate 109, fig. 6 to Lacerta hispida. This arrangement has been generally followed by later writers and corresponds with current practice. So far however no author has formally selected a lectotype for Lacerta orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758. It is clearly desirable that this should be done, in order to complete the foundation on which the current interpretation of that nominal species is based. Accordingly, I now select the specimen figured as figs. 1 and 2 on plate 83 in Volume 1 of the work by Seba published in 1734 under the title Locupletissimi Rerum naturalium Thesauri accurati Descriptio to be the lectotype of the nominal species Lacerta orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758. This selection has the further advantage of definitely fixing the type locality for this nominal species as “‘ Mexico ”’, this being not only the locality given by Linnaeus in 1758 but also the locality of the specimen figured by Seba (which is derived from Hernandez, Libr. IX, c. 16). 3. We may now turn to examine the generic names which are senior synonyms of Phrynosoma Wiegmann and which it is now desired should be suppressed by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers.. It should be noted that these names are variant spellings of one another, differing in spelling through the use of the letters “yi’’, “ y” and “j” as alternatives for the consonantal “i’’. When in 1949 I first communicated with the Office of the Commission in regard to the present case there was a proposal awaiting consideration by the International Congress of Zoology that variant spellings of this type should be ignored for the purpose of determining whether any given pairs of generic names should be regarded as being homonyms of one another. This suggestion was negatived by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, when it inserted in the Régles a provision that “a generic name is not to be treated as a homonym of another such name if it Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269 differs from it in spelling by even one letter ” (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 78, Decision 152). So far therefore as this question is concerned, the ground has been cleared for the taking of a decision in the present case. 4. Before we examine in detail the names which require to be considered, we must note that all the authors who used these names must have derived them— either directly or indirectly—from Cuvier, all the names concerned being variants of the name Tapaya. Ina few cases only, however, was Cuvier’s name actually cited. In those cases where Cuvier was treated as the author, the name was attributed either to the Second Edition of the Régne Animal (page 37 not page 57 as often incorrectly stated) which was published in 1829 or to the First Edition (: 35) of that work published in 1817. The explanation is no doubt that in the Régne Animal Cuvier recognised a group to which he applied the vernacular (French) name “ Les Tapayes ” but to which he did not give a Latin name. The names with which we are concerned are in order of date as follows :— (a) Tapaja Oken, 1816, Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) (2) : 295 (b) Tapaia Oken, 1816, Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3 (Zool.) (2) : vi (Table of Contents) (c) Tapaia Oken, 1817, Isis (Oken) 1817 : 1183 (d) Tapaya Oken, 1817, Isis (Oken) 1817 : 1183 (e) Tapayia Gray (J.E.), 1825, Ann. Phil. 26 : 197 (f) Tapaya Fitzinger, 1826, Newe Class. Rept. : 17 5. Both of the names published by Oken in 1816 in his Lehrbuch—Tapaja Oken, 1816, and T'apaia Oken, 1816—are invalid owing to the rejection by the Commission for nomenclatorial purposes of the work in which they were published (Opinion 417). The above names are no more than Original Spellings for a single generic name and, as no author has so far determined which is to be accepted as the Valid Original Spelling and which the Invalid Original Spelling, it will be convenient for purposes of record that this should now be done. As shown in paragraph 4 above, the spelling used by Oken in his main text was Tapaja, the spelling Tapaia appearing only in the table of contents. It seems reasonable therefore to conclude that in this work Oken considered Tapaja to be the correct spelling. Accordingly, I here select that spelling to be the Valid Original Spelling, thus making T'apaia Oken, 1816, an Invalid Original Spelling. Oken did not designate or indicate a type species for the genus Tapaja as introduced by himself in the Lehrbuch. It is desirable, however, for the purposes of synonymy that this genus should be provided with a type 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature species and I therefore select from his included species the nominal species Lacerta orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of Tapaja Oken, 1816. This name would thus be the oldest available name for, and the valid name of, the genus currently known as Phrynosoma Wiegmann, if it were not for the fact that work in which it was published has been rejected by the Commission for nomenclatorial purposes. 6. The name Tapaia Oken, 1817, was published in a contrasting tabular comparison of Cuvier’s (1817) classification with that adopted by Oken himself. Oken introduced this name in the column devoted to the “‘ Oken System ” for the taxon for which in the column showing Cuvier’s classification the name given was J’apaya. Cuvier, however, as has been explained in paragraph 4 above, did not employ a Latin name for this group, using for it only the French term “‘ Les Tapayes’. Accordingly, both of the above names are attributable to Oken as from his Isis paper of 1817. These names are therefore no more than Original Spellings for a single generic name. It is essential at this point to determine which of these spellings is the Valid Original Spelling and which an Invalid Original Spelling, for whichever is the Valid Original Spelling is an available name, unless disqualified under some other head, while under the Copenhagen Rules whichever is an Invalid Original Spelling possesses no status in nomenclature and does not preoccupy any later use of the spelling concerned. The foregoing question has not hitherto been considered in the literature and accordingly I now select the spelling Tapaia Oken, 1817, to be the Valid Original Spelling of this generic name, the spelling Tapaya thus becoming an Invalid Original spelling and consequently devoid of status in zoological nomenclature. This action appears to correspond with Oken’s intention in his Isis paper, for the spelling Tapaia is the spelling then used by him in the column describing his own system, as contrasted with the spelling Tapaya which in that paper he used only when describing the system adopted by Cuvier. 7. The type species of Tapaia Oken, 1817, is Lacerta orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy. Accordingly, as the name Tapaia is not a junior homonym of any previously published generic name, it is an available name possessing rights under the Law of Priority. Further in view of its type species, it is a senior objective synonym of Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828, of which also (as shown in paragraph 2 above) Lacerta orbicularis Linnaeus is the type species. It is the object of this part of the present application to seek the validation of the name Phrynosoma Wiegmann by the suppression under the Plenary Powers of its senior synonym J'apaia Oken, 1817, a name which has never been used for the genus concerned. The name Yapaia Oken, 1817, so suppressed, should then be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, together with the name Tapaya Oken, 1817, which, as an Invalid Original Spelling, is already objectively invalid. oe ee ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 271 8. The nominal genus Tapayia Gray, 1825, has as its type species by monotypy the nominal species Lacerta orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758. This name is therefore a junior objective synonym of T'apaia Oken, 1817, and also a senior objective synonym of Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828. Since it is the purpose of this application to secure the validation of the name Phrynosoma Wiegmann, it is recommended that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name T'apayia Gray as well as the name T'apaia Oken (the suppression of which has already been proposed in paragraph 7 above). 9. The nominal genus Tapaya Fitzinger, 1826, also has as its type species the nominal species Lacerta orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758, and is therefore a junior objective synonym both of Tapaia Oken, 1817, and of Tapayia Gray, 1825, and a senior objective synonym of Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828. This name is an available name, since the only earlier generic name consisting of the same word—Tapaya Oken, 1817—is an Invalid Original Spelling for another name (J’apaia Oken, 1817) and possesses no status in zoological nomenclature. Accordingly, in order to secure the validation of the name Phrynosoma Wiegmann, it will be necessary for the name T'apaya Fitzinger to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, concurrently with the suppression under those Powers of the two names of earlier date specified in paragraph 8 above. II. The problems associated with the generic name ‘“ Agama”’ Daudin, [1802] 10. The nominal species Lacerta hispida Linnaeus, 1758, which (as shown in Part I of the present application) was confused by Linnaeus with Lacerta orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758, both in 1758 and again in 1766 and was not clearly defined until in 1768 the confusion in this matter was dispelled by Laurenti, is currently regarded as representing a taxonomically valid species. Accordingly, under the “‘Completeness-of-Opinions” Rule, the specific name hispida Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lacerta hispida and as inter- preted by Laurenti (1768), should now be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 11. The nominal species Lacerta hispida Linnaeus, 1758, is currently assigned on taxonomic grounds to the genus Agama Daudin, [1802] (in Sonnini’s Buffon, Rept. 3 : 333). It is desirable that the present opportunity should be taken to place the generic name Agama Daudin on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology both because it is a name to some extent involved in the present case, and because it is an important genus currently accepted as the type genus of the 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature family aGAMIDAE. Certain difficulties arise in connection with this name, both at the generic-name level and at the family-group-name level. The first of these problems is discussed in the present Part, the problems arising at the family-group-name level being dealt with later in Part III. 12. The genus Agama was established by Daudin for a number of nominal species, one of which was the new nominal species Agama colonorum Daudin, [1802] (3 : 336). In the synonymy of this species Daudin cited the older nominal species Lacerta agama Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 207). Up to 1948 there was considerable doubt as to the method to be adopted for determining what species should be regarded as having been “ originally included ” species for any given genus. The meaning of the Régles in this regard was, however, clarified by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948 when it decided to insert in the Régles a provision that the nominal species to be regarded as having been included in a given nominal genus at the time when the name of that genus was first published are (i) the nominal species cited by the original author as valid taxonomic species belonging to that nominal genus and (ii) any nominal species, the names of which were cited on that occasion as synonyms of nominal species falling in (i) above (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 179-180, Decision 69(3)(a)). Under the foregoing provision the nominal species Lacerta agama Linnaeus, 1758, having been identified by Daudin with his nominal species Agama colonorum by the citation of the specific name agama Linnaeus in the synonymy of colonorum Daudin, ranks as one of the nominal species originally included in this genus. In view of the tautonymy between the Linnean name for this species and the generic name published by Daudin, the nominal species Lacerta agama Linnaeus 1758, is the type species of the genus Agama Daudin, [1802] by absolute tautonymy under Rule (d) in Article 30 and has been the type species of that genus ever since it was first established. The foregoing interpretation of Article 30 corresponds with the prior practice of specialists in this case, for already as far back as 1928 (Abh. senckenb. naturforsch. Ges. 41 : 25) Mertens & Muller had stated that ‘‘ colonorwum = agama” was the type species of this genus. 13. The species discussed above was for many years known by the specific name colonorum Daudin, but in 1900 (Bihang. K. svenck. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockholm 26 (Section 4) (No. 1) : 11) Andersson showed that the material on which Daudin had based his nominal species Agama colonorum consisted predominantly of specimens of the species now identified with Lacerta agama Linnaeus, three out of the four specimens concerned being referable to that species, while the fourth was a specimen of the quite different species Lacerta plica Linnaeus, 1758. For many years after the publication of Andersson’s paper the present species continued to be known by the name colonorum Daudin. In 1928, however, in his “ Liste der Amphibien und Reptilien ” Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273 Mertens abandoned Daudin’s name, applying to this species the specific name agama Linnaeus. In the following year Mertens was followed by Flower (1929, List Vertebr. Anim. 3 : 96) and—and this was even more important—by Loveridge (1929, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 151 : 48). From that time onwards the specific name colonorum Daudin seldom appeared in the literature, the species always being called by the name agama Linnaeus. Today this specific name is very well known, the species concerned being divided into countless subspecies. 14. At this point it is necessary to consider the question whether the specific name colonorum Daudin, [1802], as published in the combination Agama colonorum, should be regarded as a junior subjective synonym of agama Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lacerta agama, or whether it should more properly be looked upon as a junior objective synonym of that name. From this point of view the name colonorum Daudin could be regarded as being (a) a direct substitute for (nom. nov. pro) the name agama Linnaeus cited by Daudin in the synonymy of his new species, or (b) a name proposed partly as a substitute for agama Linnaeus but in part also based on actual specimens, or (c) a name which was not intended to be a substitute for agama Linnaeus, being no more than the name of a carelessly constructed composite species based partly upon actual specimens and partly upon the description of the specimens on which Linnaeus had established his nominal species Lacerta agama. Of these possibilities the third may be immediately dismissed as being artificial and unrealistic. In my view there can be no doubt that Daudin regarded his nominal species as in part at least a substitute nominal species for that established by Linnaeus under the name Lacerta agama. Although according to modern ideas Daudin was in error in rejecting the name Lacerta agama Linnaeus, there can be little doubt that in so doing he was prompted by the dislike of absolute tautonymy between generic and specific names that was widely felt by zoologists of his day and that it was his decision to establish a new genus consisting of the word ‘‘ Agama ” which led him to replace the specific name agama Linnaeus by a new name (colonorum). Daudin said nothing to imply that he was describing his species Agama colonorum at least in part upon actual specimens though the investigations by _ Andersson (1900) referred to in paragraph 13 above suggest that this was the case. However, from a nomenclatorial point of view it makes no difference whether the specific name colonorum Daudin was established wholly, or only partly, as a substitute for agama Linnaeus, for in either case the two names are objective synonyms of one another, the nominal species concerned having the same specimen as type specimen. It should perhaps be recalled by way of explanation that the rule set out above in relation to taxa belonging to the species-name group was adopted in 1953 by the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 75-76, Decision 142). 15. In the light of the particulars given above, we may complete as follows the recommendation submitted in paragraph 11 above that the name Agama 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Daudin, [1802], should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. First, it should be noted that this name is feminine in gender. Second, the type species of this genus should be recorded as being Lacerta agama Linnaeus, 1758, by absolute tautonymy. 16. The other action which requires to be taken in this connection is the addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the name agama Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lacerta agama, with an endorsement that this is the specific name of the type species of Agama Daudin, [1802], and the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name colonorum Daudin, [1802], as published in the combination Agama colonorum, with an endorsement that it is a junior objective synonym of agama Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lacerta agama. II. Family-Group-Name Problems 17. No family-group-name problem arises in connection with the first of the generic names dealt with in the present application, Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828, that generic name not having been taken as the base for a name in the family-group category. The genus so named is currently placed in the family IGUANIDAE. 18. The generic name Agama Daudin, [1802], the second of the names with which we are concerned, has, however, been taken as the base for a family-group name, the genus so named being currently placed in the family aAGAaMIDAE. That family-group name should now be placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology. There are, however, certain difficulties in connection with this family-group name which must first be considered. These difficulties are discussed below. 19. It was stated by Boulenger (1885, Cat. Lizards Brit. Mus. 1 : 250) that the nominal family aGaMIDAE was first established by Gray (J.E.) in 1827 (Phil. Mag. (2) 2 : 57) and this statement has been widely copied by later authors. However, this statement is correct only in so far as it refers to the first publication of a family-group name correctly formed with the termination “-1DAE”’. Gray was not the first author to establish a nominal family-group taxon based on the genus Agama Daudin, [1802], for one year earlier such a taxon had been established by Fitzinger (1826, Newe Class. Rept. : 11, 17) under the name aGamoImpEA. This family-group name should therefore be cited as AGAMIDAE (correction of acamorDEA) Fitzinger, 1826: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275 20. The next point which we have to note is that in the same work as that in which Fitzinger established his nominal family-group taxon AGAMOIDEA, he established also two other nominal family-group taxa, both of which represent the same taxon as that currently known by the name AGAMIDAE. The names concerned, both of which have page precedence over the name AGAMOIDEA, are: (a) PNEUSTOIDEA (Neue Class Rept.:11, 15); (b) DRACONOIDEA (ibid.: 11, 16). Fitzinger’s PNEUSTOIDEA contained three genera, of which two (Lyriocephalus ; Phrynocephalus) are currently recognised as belonging to the family acamr1pDAz, while the third (Pneustes Merrem, 1820) has never been satisfactorily identified. Fitzinger’s DRACONOIDEA is based upon the genus Draco Linnaeus, 1758, which is a valid genus currently placed in the family acammpaE. Since the Copenhagen Congress the relative pre- cedence to be given to generic and specific names published in the same book and on the same date is determinable in accordance with the First Reviser Principle and not by page precedence (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 66-67, Decision 123). No express provision on this subject has as yet been made in relation to family-group names, but it is reasonable that a similar procedure should be followed in regard to this class of name. Indeed, a proposal in this sense is at present before the International Commission (Hemming, 1956, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 264-266). In the circumstances the proper course appears to be to proceed on the assumption that the relative precedence to be accorded to family-group names published on the same date and in the same work is subject to the same rule as that already laid down in relation to generic and specific names. This question has not hitherto been considered in the literature in relation to the particular names discussed above. Accordingly, in order to secure the position of the family-group name AGAMIDAE (correction of aGaMoIDEA) Fitzinger, 1826, from the above point of view, I now, as First Reviser choose the family-group name aGaMoIDEA Fitzinger, 1826, to be a name to have precedence over the following names published in the same book and on the same date, namely the names PNEUSTOIDEA Fitzinger and DRACONOIDEA Fitzinger. 21. The next point which requires to be considered is the status of the name AGAMIDAE (correction of AGAMOIDEA) Fitzinger, in relation to the older family group name STELLIONIDAE Bell, 1825 (Zool. J. 1 : 457). This name was clearly marked by Bell as a new name by the insertion of the word ‘ Mihi” immediately after it. In other respects, however, it was introduced in a very unsatisfactory manner, for Bell did not give any diagnosis for his new family- group taxon and did not even specify its type genus, doing no more than place in it the genus Uromastyx Merrem. It was, however, common knowledge to Bell’s contemporaries—just as it is perfectly well known to modern specialists -—that Bell’s intention in publishing the family-group name STELLIONIDAE, was to establish a nominal family-group taxon having as its type genus the nominal genus Stellio Daudin, [1802] (in Sinnini’s Buffon, Rept. 4:5). Gray (J.E.) later in the same year (1825, Ann. Phil. (2) 10 : 196) took the view that the way in which this family-group name had been published by Bell was so unsatis- factory that it did not suffice to secure the status of availability for the name 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature STELLIONIDAE as so published. He accordingly republished this family-group name as a new name of his own, specifying Stellio Daudin as the type genus. In this matter subsequent authors have followed Gray and have attributed this family-group name to him and not to Bell. The minimum requirements which must be met for a family-group name to acquire availability have recently been clarified by the International Commission in Declaration 31 which provides that such a name is not to be rejected on the ground that the author publishing that name did not specify the name of its type genus. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact that the Copenhagen Congress had already prescribed that it is not necessary—though it is desirable—that an author establishing a nominal family-group taxon should provide an ‘indication ” for that taxon in addition to incorporating in its name the stem of the stem of the name of its type genus, it is clear that Gray was in error in rejecting the name STELLIONIDAE Bell, 1825, on the ground that it had been published without an “ indication ”’. 22. During much of the XIXth century the name Stellio Daudin, [1802], was treated as a nomenclatorially available name but was regarded as a junior synonym of Agama Daudin, [1802]. About twenty-five years ago Stejneger and Malcolm Smith pointed out that the name Stellio had been validly published by another author many years before it was published by Daudin, having been introduced in 1768 by Laurenti (Specimen med. : 56). Following this discovery Stejneger fearing that in consequence the name Stellio as from Laurenti might be re-introduced into the literature deliberately selected as the type species of this genus the unidentifiable species Stellio sazxatilis Laurenti, 1768 (op. cit. : 57) (Stejneger, 1932, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 35 : 618). In 1936 Stejneger returned to this subject (Copeia 1936 : 138), observing that the type selection which he had made for Stellio Laurenti was “calculated to prevent the specter of Stellio becoming active again in herpetological literature’. Stejneger’s was undoubtedly the first—and therefore the valid—type selection for the genus Stellio Laurenti, 1768. By reason of that selection that generic name became a nomen dubium and could in no circumstances represent a threat to the generic name Agama Daudin, [1802]. 23. While the re-appearance of the generic name Stellio Laurenti, 1768, has fortunately no bearing on the present case at the generic-name level, it imports a valuable new element into it at the family-group-name level. For as we now see, the generic name Stellio Daudin, [1802], which is the name of the type genus both of sTELLIONIDAE Bell, 1825, and of the independently established STELLIONIDAE Gray, 1825, is invalid as being a junior homonym of Stellio Laurenti, 1768. Under a decision by the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomenel. : 36, Decision 54(1)(b)) a family-group name based upon the name of a type genus which is invalid as a junior homonym of another generic name is itself to be rejected as invalid. Accordingly, the family-group name STELLIONIDAE as published by Bell in 1825 and the same name as published later in the same year by Gray are both invalid. Thus all in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277 threat from these names to the well-established name AGAMIDAE is removed. These invalid names should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology at the same time that the name AGAMIDAE (correction of AGAMOIDEA) Fitzinger, 1826 is placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. IV. Recommendations 24. In the light of the considerations set out in the present application the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked :— (1) to use its 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) Tapaia Oken, 1817 ; (b) Tapayia Gray (J.E.), 1825 ; (c) Tapaya Fitzinger, 1826 ; (2) to confirm the generic name Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1) above, in its position on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, at the same time substituting the following entry on that List for that made thereon by the Ruling given in Opinion 92 :— Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1) above (gender: neuter) (type species, by selection by Fitzinger (1843): Lacerta orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758, as interpreted by the lectotype selected by Smith (H.M.) in paragraph 2 of the present application). (3) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Agama Daudin, [1802] (gender: feminine) (type species, by absolute tautonymy under Rule (d) in Article 30: Lacerta agama Linnaeus, 1758) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— : (a) orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lacerta orbicularis and as interpreted by the lectotype specified in (2) above (specific name of type species of Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828) ; 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) Atspida Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lacerta hispida and as interpreted by Laurenti (J.N.) (1768), acting as First Reviser ; (c) agama Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lacerta agama (specific name of type species of Agama Daudin, [1802}) ; (5) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Tapaja Oken, 1816, a spelling selected from two Original Spellings to be the Valid Original Spelling in paragraph 5 of the present application (invalid because published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 417) ; (b) Tapaia Oken, 1817 (a spelling selected from two Original Spellings to be the Valid Original Spelling in paragraph 6 of the present application (as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above) ; (c) Tapaia Oken, 1816 (an Invalid Original Spelling for Tapaja Oken, 1816, by selection in paragraph 5 of the present applica- tion; invalid also because published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by the Ruling given in Opinion 417) ; (d) Tapaya Oken, 1817 (an Invalid Original Spelling for Tapaia Oken, 1817, by selection in paragraph 6 of the present application) ; (e) Tapayia Gray (J.E.), 1825, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above ; (f) Tapaya Fitzinger, 1826, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1)(c) above ; (g) Stellio Daudin, [1802] (a junior homonym of Stellio Laurenti, 1768) ; (6) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— colonorum Daudin, [1802], as published in the combination Agama colonorum (a junior objective synonym of agama Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lacerta agama) ; (7) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— AGAMIDAE (correction of AGAMOIDEA) Fitzinger, 1826, a name having precedence over the family-group names PNEUSTOIDEA Fitzinger, 1826, and pRaconompzEA Fitzinger, 1826, published Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279 in the same work and on the same date, through the First Reviser selection made by Smith (H.M.) in paragraph 20 of the present application (type genus: Agama Daudin, [1802)}) ; (8) to place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Grouwp Names in Zoology :— (a) AGaMorDEA Fitzinger, 1826 (an Invalid Original Spelling for AGAMIDAE) ; (b) the under-mentioned family-group names, each of which is invalid because the name of its type genus (Stellio Daudin, [1802]) is a junior homonym of a generic name of older date (Stellio Laurenti, 1768) :— (i) STELLIONIDAE Bell, 1825 ; (ii) STELLIONIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1825. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL REGARDING THE GENERIC NAME ““ MANSONIA”’ BLANCHARD, 1901 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) By HARRY D. PRATT (Department of Health & Welfare, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1193) (For the proposals in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 160-166) (Letter dated 24th J uly 1957) I have noticed a Nomenclature Notice in Entomological News regarding the generic name Mansonia. I have published two papers on this genus (‘“ Notes on American Mansonia Mosquitoes”? Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 55(1) : 9-19; “ Mansonia indubitans Dyar and Shannan—a new Mosquito addition to the United States Fauna” J. Kans. ent. Soc. 18(4) : 121-129). I sincerely hope that this generic name can be used instead of Taeniorhynchus which I believe is more correctly used as a sub-generic name in the genus Aedes. Dr. Stone has ably summed up the arguments in favour of Mansonia in John Lane’s (1953) Neotropical Culicidae, 2 : 590. I feel certain that most mosquito taxonomists in the United States would prefer to have the generic name Mansonia placed on the Official List instead of Taeniorhynchus. 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PRESERVE THE GENERIC NAMES “ LIPTENA’’ WESTWOOD, [1851], AND “PENTILA ’? WESTWOOD, [1851] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) FOR USE IN THEIR ACCUSTOMED SENSE AND TO PREVENT THE TRANSFER OF THOSE NAMES TO GENERA FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN EMPLOYED By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) and H. STEMPFFER (Paris) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 476) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to preserve for use in their accustomed sense the names of two important African genera of LYCAENIDAE—Liptena Westwood, [1851], and Pentila Westwood, [1851]— and to prevent the extremely confusing transfer of these names to genera for which they have never been used which would result if the normal provisions of the Régles were to be applied in the present case. 2. The following are the references for the generic names involved in the present case :— Tingra Boisduval, 1847, in Delegorgue, Voy. Afrique austr. 2: 589 (type species, by monotypy : T'ingra tropicalis Boisduval, 1847, in Delagorgue, Voy. Afrique austr. 2 : 589) Pentila Westwood, [5th December 1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : pl. 76 (type species by monotypy: Pentila zymna Westwood, [5th December 1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : pl. 76, fig. 6) LIiptena Westwood, [5th December 1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2): pl. 77 (type species, by selection by Scudder (S.H.) (1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 208) : Liptena acraea Westwood, [5th December 1851], Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : pl. 77, fig. 6) Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 9. September 1957. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281 Megalopalpus Rober, 1886, CorrespBl. ent. Ver. Iris 1:51 (type species, by original designation : M egalopalpus simplex Rober, 1886, Corresp Bl. ent. Ver. Irie’t! © 51; pl. 4, fig. 4) Parapontia Rober, 1892, in Schatz, in Staudinger & Schatz, Hxot. Schmett. 1 (Th. 2) (6) : 280 (type species by monotypy: Liptena undularis Hewitson, [1866], Jll. exot. Butts. 3 : [120], pl. [60], fig. 7) Telipna Aurivillius, 1895, Ent. Tidskr. 16 : 198 (type species, by original designation: Liptena acraea Westwood, [5th December 1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : pl. 77, fig. 6). 3. A large part of the difficulties in the present case arise from the unsatisfactory way in which the names Pentila and Liptena were first validly published (by Westwood in 1851) and from the fact that the first of these names had already been published, four years previously, as a nomen nudum. These aspects of the case are discussed in the immediately following paragraphs. 4. The generic name Pentila was first published by Doubleday in 1847 (List. Spec. lep. Ins. Brit. Mus. 2 : 57) but this name is invalid as from the date on which it was so published (a) because he gave no diagnosis for the genus so named (a deficiency which would not have been fatal to the availability of this name if he had cited the name of any previously established nominal species as that of a species belonging to this new genus) and (b) because the only nominal species which he cited as belonging to Pentila was Pentila undularis, a manuscript species of Boisduval’s, the name of which was therefore at that time a nomen nudum. Thus, the name Pentila as published by Doubleday was a name possessing no nomenclatorial foundation and is itself a nomen nudum. 5. It is necessary now to examine the way in which the generic names Pentila and Liptena were published by Westwood in his supplement to Doubleday’s Genera of Diurnal Lepidoptera. These names appeared both on the legends of plates published in this supplement and also in the accompanying text. What is important at this stage is to determine whether the plates and the text were published simultaneously or whether one was published before the other and, if so, which. For the nominal Species associated with these nominal genera are not in all respects the same on the plates as in the text. Until fairly recently the relative dates of publication were not known with certainty and this is one of the causes of the confusion which has arisen in this _ ease, some authors having treated the text and the plates (pls. 76 and 77) as having been published simultaneously, others taking the view that the plates were published before the text. Fortunately, all doubts on this subject have been removed by the demonstration by Hemming in 1941 (J. Soc. Bibl. 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature nat. Hist. 1 : 335-464) of the dates on which each sheet of the text and each plate of this work were published. This paper shows that plates 76 and 77 were published on 5th December 1851 in Part 50 and that the portion of the text containing the names Pentila and Liptena (i.e. the portion containing page 503), which were issued in Part 54, was not published until 12th August 1852. Thus, the plates concerned have over eight months’ priority over the corresponding portion of the text. We must note at this point that the contention sometimes formerly advanced that generic names published on the legends of plates cannot be accepted for nomenclatorial purposes is without foundation, having been finally disposed of by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 255) by the insertion in the Régles of a provision that any generic name published in the foregoing way before lst January 1931 is to be accepted as having been duly published with an “ indication”’. We see therefore that the names Pentila Westwood and Liptena Westwood rank for priority as from 5th December 1851, the dates on which those names appeared on the legends to plates 76 and 77 respectively. Further, the only nominal species which are eligible to become the type species are the nominal species cited in the legends to the above plates as belonging to these genera. (Before leaving Westwood’s supplement to Doubleday’s Gen. diurn. Lep., we may note that in the text (: 503) he cited Tiptena only as a synonym of Pentila, transferring to that genus the two species which he had figured on plate 77 as belonging to Liptena. Though of interest as showing a change in Westwood’s taxonomic ideas, his treatment of these nominal genera in the text of his supplement is of no nomenclatorial significance, for, as we have seen, the names of these genera had been published on the legends of plates 76 and 77 eight months’ earlier and in consequence the interpretation of the genera so named depends exclusively upon the treatment accorded to them when the names Pentila and Liptena were published on the foregoing plates.) 6. Now that we know definitely when and where the names Pentila and Iiptena were first published, we have no difficulty at all in determining what under the Régles are the respective type species of the genera so named. On plate 76 the only nominal species cited as belonging to the genus Pentila Westwood was the nominal species Pentila zymna Westwood (a nominal species then established for the first time), which is therefore the type species of Pentila Westwood by monotypy. On plate 77 two nominal species, both at that time new species, were cited as belonging to the genus Liptena Westwood. These were Liptena abraxas Westwood (fig. 5) and Liptena acraea Westwood (fig. 6). From these species which alone are eligible for consideration as possible type species for Liptena Westwood, Liptena acraea Westwood was the first to be selected as the type species, this selection having been made by Scudder in 1875. Under the Régles this species is therefore the type species of Liptena Westwood. 7. Although it has long been known that the current interpretation of the genera Liptena Westwood and Pentila Westwood was untenable, the changes SS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 283 in current usage which would follow a strict application of the normal provisions of the Régles are so devastating that no worker has attempted to apply those provisions in this case. Thus, Liptena acraea Westwood, the type species of Iiptena Westwood under the Régles, is a species currently placed in the genus Telipna Aurivillius, 1895, of which indeed it is the type species. If in this case the normal provisions of the Régles were to be applied the name Liptena Westwood would have to be transferred to the genus now known as Telipna Aurivillius, the latter name disappearing as a junior objective synonym of Iiptena Westwood. This confusing and objectionable change would make it necessary to apply to the genus currently known as Liptena Westwood the name Parapontia Rober, 1892, the type species of the genus so named being Iiptena undularis Hewitson, [1866], a highly representative member of the genus Liptena as currently understood. The effect of applying the normal provisions of the Régles to the generic name Pentila Westwood would be equally startling and confusing, for Pentila zymna Westwood, the valid type species of this genus is currently referred to the genus Megalopalpus Rober, 1886. The latter name would disappear as a junior subjective synonym of Pentila Westwood and another name would need to be provided for the large genus currently known by the name Pentila. It is at this point that a further flaw in the accepted nomenclature of this group comes into view, for we have to note that under the Régles not only does the name Pentila apply to a genus different from that for which it is currently employed but that, even if this were not so, it would still not be the valid name for that genus, for that name, as so used, is a junior subjective synonym of the long-forgotten and virtually unknown name Tingra Boisduval, 1847. 8. The far-reaching nature of the disturbance which would be created by the changes described above will be immediately apparent when it is realised that they would involve the transfer of almost one hundred and fifty species from the genera in which they are customarily placed to genera to which they have never been assigned. Thus, the thirty species of Telipna would in future have to be known as Liptena; the sixty-eight species of Liptena would have to be transferred to the genus Parapontia ; the four species of Megalopalpus would be known as Pentila ; finally the forty-six species of Pentila would have to go by the name Tingra Boisduval. Moreover, all the faunistic works so far published would become unintelligible, for every author has followed Aurivillius in his disposition of the names Liptena, Telipna and Pentila. 9. But it is not only at the generic-name level that the most serious - confusion would arise if the normal provisions of the Régles were to apply in the present case, for even more baffling changes would be involved at the family-group-name level. Of the genera with which we are concerned three (Telipna, Pentila and Liptena, in each case as currently understood) are placed in the subfamily LipTeNINAE Kirby (W.F.), 1896 (in Allen’s Nat. Libr., Handb. Lep. 1, Butts. 2 : 133), while the fourth (Megalopalpus) does not even belong to 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the subfamily LIPTENINAE. As was pointed out by Aurivillius (1898) and later by Bethune-Baker (1914), this genus is an isolated African representative of an entirely distinct Indo-Oriental subfamily which is now known as the MILETINAE Corbet (A.S.) & Pendlebury (H.M.), 1956 (Butts. Malay Penins. (ed. 2) : 259, 264), a group having the genus Miletus Hiibner, [1819] (Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 71) as type genus. The subfamily LIPTENINAE is itself commonly divided into two tribes, the PENTILINI Aurivillius, [1921] (in Seitz, Grossschmett. Erde 13 : 298) and the nominate tribe LiprENtNI. Of the three Liptenine genera here in question two (Yelipna and Pentila as currently understood) belong to the PENTILINI, while Liptena (as hitherto interpreted) belongs naturally to the nominate tribe LIPTENINI. It will be seen at once how great would be the confusion resulting from applying the normal provisions of the Régles to the names of the type genera of the foregoing family-group taxa. The genus Pentila, the type genus of the tribe PENTILINI, would cease to belong to the subfamily LrPreNntNAz, while within that subfamily the tribe now known as PENTILINI, which comprises the genus now known as Telipna but which in future would be known as Liptena, would become the nominate tribe LipTENINI. Some other name would have to be found for the tribe comprising the genus now known as Liptena (which would have to be known as Parapontia), for this would no longer include Liptena and could not in future be known as the LIPTENINI. 10. It will be seen from the particulars given above that the most profound and far-reaching confusion not only at the generic-name level but also at the family-group-name level would result from the application in this case of the normal provisions of the Régles. For this reason alone there are, in our view, very strong reasons in favour of remedial action being taken by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. These reasons appear to us to be irresistable when account is taken of the exceptional morphological interest of this group and the peculiar examples of mimicry exhibited by some of the species concerned, as regards which a considerable literature has grown up. It is for these reasons that in the present application we ask the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to stabilise current nomenclatorial practice and to prevent the very serious confusion which would otherwise be inevitable. The main features of the action necessary to give effect to the solution which we recommend are twofold. First, it would be necessary for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name Tingra Boisduval, 1847, for otherwise that name by reason of its priority would render impossible the use of the name Pentila Westwood, [1851] which has for so long been applied to the genus concerned. Second, it would be necessary for the Commission under the same Powers to designate both for Pentila Westwood and for Liptena Westwood, [1851], type species in harmony with current and long-established practice. As regards the choice to be made of the species to be designated as the type species of these genera, we consider that the best course would be (i) to designate as the type species of Liptena Westwood the nominal species Liptena undularis Hewitson, [1866], that species having for long, though incorrectly, been regarded as the type species of this genus, and (ii) to designate as the type species of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285 Pentila Westwood the nominal species Tingra tropicalis Boisduval, 1847, this being a species which is intrinsically suitable for selection as type species and is moreover the type species of the older-established nominal genus T'ingra Boisduval, 1847, the name of which it is proposed (for the reasons explained above) should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers in order to make way for the continued use of the generic name Pentila Westwood. 11. The proposal which for the reasons set out in the present application we now submit for consideration is that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress the generic name Tingra Boisduval, 1847, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to set aside all indications or selections of type species for the under-mentioned genera made prior to the Ruling now asked for and, having done so, to designate as the type species of those genera the nominal species severally specified below :— Name of Genus Nominal species proposed to be designated as type species of the genus specified in Col. (1) (1) (2) Liptena Westwood, Liptena undularis Hewitson, [1866] [1851] Pentila Westwood, Tingra tropicalis Boisduval, 1847 [1851] (2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Liptena Westwood, [1851] (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above : Liptena undularis Hewitson, [1866]) ; (b) Pentila Westwood, [1851], as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above: Tingra tropicalis Boisduval, 1847) ; (c) Telipna Aurivillius, 1895 (gender: feminine) (type species, by original designation : Liptena acraea Westwood, [1851)) ; (d) Megalopalpus Réber, 1886 (gender: masculine) (type species, by original designation : Megalopalpus simplex Rober, 1886) ; 286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (3) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) undularis Hewitson, [1866], as published in the combination Liptena undularis (specific name of type species of Liptena Westwood, [1851]) ; (b) tropicalis Boisduval, 1847, as published in the combination Tingra tropicalis (specific name of type species of Pentila Westwood, [1851}) ; (c) acraea Westwood, [1851], as published in the combination Liptena acraea (specific name of type species of T'elipna Aurivillius, 1895) ; (d) simplex Rober, 1886, as published in the combination Megalopalpus simplex (specific name of type species of Megalopalpus Rober, 1886) ; (e) zymna Westwood, [1851], as published in the combination Pentila zymna ; (4) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Tingra Boisduval, 1847, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above ; (b) Parapontia Rober, 1892 (a junior objective synonym of Liptena Westwood, [1851], as defined under the Plenary Powers in ' (1)(b) above) ; (5) place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) LIPTENINAE Kirby (W.F.), 1896 (type genus : Liptena Westwood, [1851]) ; (b) PENTILINI Aurivillius, [1921] (type genus: Pentila Westwood, [1851)). SUPPORT FOR THE HEMMING/STEMPFFER APPLICATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE GENERIC NAMES “LIPTENA’’ AND “PENTILA’’? (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) FOR USE IN THEIR ACCEPTED SENSE By N. D. RILEY, C.B.E. (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 476) (For the application here referred to see pages 280-286 of the present Part) (Letter dated 21st June 1957) I am most happy to support the application to the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to preserve the use of the generic names Liptena and Pentila in their present accepted sense. As you so clearly demonstrate in the application, to apply these names strictly in accordance with the Rules would make a phantasy of the Commission’s attempts to achieve stability in nomenclature. A point which might be stressed even more strongly than you do in the application is that these genera as at present used include a large number of species of astonishing taxonomic and bionomic interest. They present variations of structure and pattern which as yet are not by any means fully understood, and certainly in some cases are of mimetic significance. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287 PROPOSED DESIGNATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE FOR THE GENUS “CENTRIS’’ FABRICIUS, 1804, AND PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE SAME POWERS OF THE SPECIFIC NAME “ DIMIDIATA ”’ FABRICIUS, 1793, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “APIS DIMIDIATA’’ (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) By CHARLES D. MICHENER (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 770) The principal purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to designate a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Centris Fabricius, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). The second purpose of the application is to ask for the validation under the same Powers of the specific name dimidiata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Apis dimidiata, the specific name of the type species of Hulaema Lepeletier, 1841, a genus, the name of which is also involved in the present case. I am opposed to any excessive use of the Plenary Powers, but, in my opinion, their use for the purposes specified above is fully justified, since otherwise serious confusion would certainly result. 2. The name concerned is Centris Fabricius (1804, Systema Piezatorum : 354). Many species were originally included in it and th.se are now placed among several genera of bees. From 1804 to about 1850 considerable confusion existed as to what the generic units should be and authors placed species in various genera for reasons often no longer apparent. During this period two type selections involving originally included species were made, as follows :— (i) Apis dimidiata Fabricius, 1793 (Ent. syst. 2 : 316), selected by Blanchard, 1840, Histoire Naturelle des Insectes, 3 : 405. (li) Apis hirtipes Fabricius, 1793 (Ent. syst. 2 : 315) (a junior subjective synonym of Apis rustica Olivier, 1789, Eney. méth. 4 (Ins.) : 64) designated by Blanchard, 1849, in Cuvier, Régne Animal (Ed. 3), imsectes, 2 (texte) : 217; atlas: pl. 128 bis, fig. 7. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 9. September 1957. 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8. Apis dimidiata Fabricius, the valid type species of Centris Fabricius does not belong to that genus as currently understood but is a member of the genus now usually known by the name Hulaema Lepeletier, 1841. 4. Lepeletier, in 1841 (Histoire Naturelle des Insectes, Hyménopteres 2 : 11), described the genus Hulaema for Apis dimidiata Fabricius and its allies, a group of apine bees, and used the name Centris for a group of anthophorine bees similar to Apis haemorrhoidalis Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 386). Lepeletier was followed in this procedure by most subsequent bee students, as shown by the following partial list of major works: Smith, 1854, Catalogue of Hymenopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum, part Ti, Apidae; Dalla Torre, 1896, Catalogus Hymenopterorum, vol. X, Apidae ; Friese, 1900, “ Monographie der Bienengattung Centris ”, Ann. K. K. Naturhist. Hofmus. [Wein], 15 : 237-350. Shorter works by many authors, including Alfken, Cockerell, Cresson, Cameron, Cheesman, Friese, Lutz, Moure, and Schwarz follow the same usage for the generic names Centris and Hulaema, even though the first validly selected type species of Centris is a species of Eulaema. 5. Schrottky (1905, Z. syst. Hymenopterologie Dipterologie 5 : 23-26; 1905, An. Cien. Paraguayos (1) (No. 4) :13; 1909, Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 11 :160; and 1914, Deuts. ent. Z. 1914 : 220) pointed out that Centris should be applied to a group of apine bees (usually called Hulaema) and used the name Hemisia Klug, 1807, to replace the name Centris of authors for the antho- phorine genus. In this Schrottky followed Spinola (1851, in Historio Fisco y Politico de Chile, Fauna 6 : 167). Based upon the type designations, this procedure is entirely correct but Schrottky’s argument that the Fabrician description of Centris applies better to the apine than to the anthophorine group is incorrect, as was pointed out by Cockerell, in Lutz and Cockerell (1920, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 42 : 549). yr 6. The only authors to follow Schrottky in the use of the generic names Hemisia Klug (type species: Apis haemorrhoidalis Fabricius, 1775, by designation of Cockerell, 1906, Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 32 : 105) and Centris Fabricius (type species : Apis dimidiata Fabricius, 1793) are Sandhouse (1943, Proc: U.S. Nat. Mus. 92 : 557) and Michener (1944, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 82 : 186; 1951, J. Kansas Ent. Soc. 24 : 1). 7. In the genus usually known as Centris (=Hemisia), a survey of my card file (known to be incomplete, yet fully representative) shows that 233 names were proposed under the name Centris, 18 under the name Hemisia, and some, of course under other generic names. In the genus usually known as Hulaema (=Centris with type species dimidiata), none of the forms were described under the name Centris. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289 8. It is obvious that transfer of the generic name Centris from the antho- phorine genus to the apine genus would cause much more confusion than uniformity, even though under the Rules it is the nomenclatorially correct procedure. It is therefore requested that the Commission use its Plenary Powers to set aside all type selections hitherto made for the genus Centris Fabricius, 1804, and, having done so, designate Apis haemorrhoidalis Fabricius, 1775, as type species of this genus. This procedure will conserve both the name Centris and the name Hulaema in their traditional senses. It gives Centris Fabricius and Hemisia Klug the same type species, which is desirable in view of the long recognized synonymy of these names, dating formally from Dalla Torre (1896) and recognized at the subgeneric level by recent authors. Furthermore, it makes use of an originally included species as the type species of Centris Fabricius. 9. The solution recommended involves the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology both of the generic name Centris Fabricius and of the name Eulaema Lepeletier. In connection with this latter name another problem arises which calls for action by the Commission under its Plenary Powers, for the name Apis dimidiata Fabricius, 1793, the name of the type species of the latter genus is a junior homonym of two older identical names : Apis dimidiata Olivier, 1789 (Ency. méth., Ins. 4:64) and Apis dimidiata Gmelin (J.F.), [1790] (in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(5) : 2780). So far as I have been able to learn, neither of these names has ever been referred to in the literature (except for catalogue references, like Dalla Torre, 1896), since the dates on which each was respectively first published. Certainly neither of these names is in accepted usage. I would therefore strongly urge that these names be suppressed under the Plenary Powers and the name dimidiata Fabricius, 1793, thereby validated. In the case of the earlier of these names, the action now recommended is particularly important quite apart from the need for validating the name dimidiata Fabricius, for judging by the description the species described by Olivier is probably a species of the genus Centris. It would be confusing in the extreme to have different species with, at one time or another, the same specific name (dimidiata) in two genera which have both gone under the name Centris at one time or another. To make matters worse, dimidiata Olivier and dimidiata Fabricius were from the same region, Cayenne 10. The genus Centris Fabricius is currently accepted as the type genus of a tribe CENTRIDINI. This name was originally published by Cockerell (T.D.A.) & Cockerell (W.P.) in 1901 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 7 : 47) in the defective form cENTRINI. This Invalid Original Spelling was corrected to CENTRIDINI by Moure in 1945 (Rev. Ent., R. de J. 16 : 293). In a subsequent personal communication Moure has informed me that he made this correction because the name Centrisis probably based on the Greek word xevrpis, genitive cevtpidos. This word was also used in Latin with the genitive “ Centridis”. The stem 290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of this word is thus clearly ‘‘ Centrid-’’, and the tribal name should there- fore be CENTRIDINI. The name in its corrected form should now be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, while the spelling CENTRINI should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology. To this latter Index should also now be added the name HEMISIINI Michener, 1944 (Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 82 : 286), for under the proposals now submitted the name of its type genus (Hemisia) will become a junior objective synonym of Centris (paragraph 8 above), the names CENTRIDINI and HEMISIINI thus becoming objective synonyms of one another, the former, as the older name, taking priority. 11. For the reasons set out above the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all selections of type species for the genus Centris Fabricius, 1804, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and, having done so, to designate the nominal species Apis haemorrhoidalis Fabricius, 1775, to be the type species of the above genus ; (b) to suppress the under-mentioned specific names for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy :— - (i) dimidiata Olivier, 1789, as published in the combination Apis dimidiata ; (ii) dimidiata Gmelin (J.F.), [1790], as published in the combination Apis dimidiata ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Centris Fabricius, 1804 (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above: Apts haemorrhoidalis Fabricius, 1775) ; (b) Hulaema Lepeletier, 1841 (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by Taschenberg (1883): Apis dimidiata Fabricius, 1793, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) haemorrhoidalis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Apis haemorrhoidalis (specific name of type species of Centris Fabricius, 1804) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291 (b) dimidiata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Apis dimidiata, as validated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above (specific name of type species of Zulaema Lepeletier, 1841) ; (c) rustica Olivier, 1789, as published in the combination Apis rustica ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— Hemisia Klug, 1807 (a junior objective synonym of Centris Fabricius, 1804, as defined under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above ; (5) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) dimidiata Olivier, 1789, as published in the combination Apis dimidiata, and as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(i) above ; (b) dimidiata Gmelin (J -F.), [1790], as published in the combination Apis dimidiata, and as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b)(ii) above ; (6) to place the under-mentioned family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— CENTRIDINI (correction of CENTRINI) Cockerell (T.D.A.) & Cockerell (W.P.), 1901 (type genus: Centris Fabricius, 1804) (first published in correct form as CENTRIDINI by Moure (J.) (1945)) ; (7) to place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) CENTRINI Cockerell (T.D.A.) & Cockerell (W.P.), 1901 (an Invalid Original Spelling for CENTRIDINI) ; (b) HEMIsIINI Michener (C.D.), 1944 (type genus: Hemisia Klug, 1807) (invalid because under the Ruling under the Plenary Powers asked for in (1)(a) above the species which is the type species of Hemisia Klug, 1807, will become also the type species of Centris Fabricius, 1775, and in consequence the generic name Hemisia Klug, 1807, will become a junior objective synonym of Centris Fabricius, 1775, and the family-group name HEMISIINI Michener, 1944, will become a junior objective synonym of CENTRIDINI (correction of CENTRINI) Cockerell (T.D.A.) & Cockerell (W.P.), 1901). 292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A “ DECLARATION ”’ CLARIFYING THE QUESTION WHETHER IN THE CASE OF A ZOOLOGICAL NAME IN WHICH TWO ADJACENT VOWELS CONSTITUTE SEPARATE SYLLABLES A SYMBOL SIGNIFYING THE DIAERESIS SHOULD UNDER ARTICLE 20 OF THE “ REGLES’’ BE PLACED OVER THE SECOND OF THE VOWELS CONCERNED By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1013) The purpose of the following note is to draw attention to a problem arising out of the decision by the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 57, 58, Decision 101) to repeal Article 20 in the Régles relating to the use of diacritic marks over letters in words when used as the scientific names of animals, and to seek a decision on the issue so disclosed. 2. It will be recalled that as part of the decision referred to above the Copenhagen Congress agreed that, where on a zoological name being published, a diacritic mark was annexed to one of the letters of which that name was composed—because such a mark had been annexed to the letter in question in the word concerned before it was Latinised for use in zoologicalnomenclature— an additional vowel should be inserted to indicate that a diacritic mark had been so used. In the case of a name based on a German word, one of the vowels in which had borne an umlaut prior to its being Latinised, Article 20 always provided, as an optional course, for the insertion of the letter “‘e”’ to signify the presence in the original word of an umlaut over the preceding vowel. This arrangement will now no doubt become mandatory. 3. The Régles have never contained any provision relating to the use or otherwise of the symbol [**] to signify a diaeresis between two adjacent vowels. This was of no practical consequence so long as Article 20 contained a mandatory provision relating to the use of diacritic marks, for it naturally followed that zoologists employed the conventional symbol to indicate a diaeresis where such existed. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 9. September 1957. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293 4. The situation has, however, been changed by the decision of the Copenhagen Congress that diacritic marks are not in future to be used over symbol denoting a diaeresis, 5. The diaeresis represents a concept quite distinct from that represented by diacritic marks, for it draws attention not to the use of what is essentially a different letter—e.g. the letter “4 ” being essentially a letter different from the letter “a ”— but to the fact that the second of the two adjacent vowels concerned requires to be pronounced separately. The use of a symbol to indicate a diaeresis provides a useful guide to pronunciation and it seems to me therefore that it would be convenient for the Regles to contain a provision authorising and regulating the use of that symbol. 6. It is suggested that the provision in question should read as follows :— Draft of suggested provision vowel which constitutes the second syllable. Example: The vowels of the name “ Chloe ” are divided into two syllables by a diaeresis. Accordingly, when this word is used as a zoological name, it should be written as Chloé and not as Chloe. 7. In submitting the foregoing proposal, I have pleasure in acknowledging the assistance and advice rendered by Professor the Reverend L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission. 294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPLEMENTARY ACTION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RECOMMENDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THAT THE NAME “ PALAEMON ADSPERSUS’”’ RATHKE, 1837 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) SHALL BE THE OLDEST AVAILABLE NAME FOR THE TAXON IN QUESTION By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (For the original application submitted in this see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 142-153) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 446) I much regret to have to report that since the preparation of the application which I submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name squilla Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer squilla, and matters incidental thereto (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 142-153) certain additional information has come to light which makes it necessary to amplify in some respects the application previously submitted. 2. First, it is necessary to note that in 1826 (Natuurk. Verhand. Hollandsche Mij. Wetensch. 15 : 262) Anslijn in the introduction to a paper in Dutch concerning the Insecta of the Netherlands introduced (: 1) in a rather casual way the new name Palaemon communis as a substitute for the name Cancer squilla Linnaeus, 1758. I have been quite unable to trace any later use of this name or even to find a reference to its existence in the literature either in Sherborn’s Index Animalium or elsewhere. The name Palaemon communis Anslijn has priority over the name Palaemon adspersus Rathke, 1837, and, unless supplementary action is taken by the Commission, would replace that name if in response to the application already submitted the Commission were to suppress the specific name squilla Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer squilla. In my earlier application I have explained how important it is to put an end to the confusion and diversity of practice which has grown up in the matter of the name to be used for this prawn and have recommended that order should be restored by the Commission taking action Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 9. September 1957. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295 to secure that the specific name adspersus Rathke—a name which is well understood by all carcinologists and as to which no difficulties of interpretation exist—shall be the oldest available name for this important species. The introduction of the totally unknown specific name communis Anslijn for this species would inevitably usher in a new era of confusion and would, in my view, be totally at variance with modern ideas as to the need for avoiding objectionable name-changing. I therefore now supplement my previous application by asking that the specific name communis Anslijn, 1826, as published in the combination Palaemon communis, be suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 3. Second, it is necessary to draw attention to two ancient nomina dubia which represent a potential threat to the stability of the specific name tenuicornis Say, 1818, as published in the combination Palaemon tenuicornis, another of the names which in my earlier application I asked should be protected by being placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The nomina dubia here in question are :— Penaeus punctatissimus Bosc, [1801-1802], in Castel (R.R.), Suite 4 Buffon, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 109, pl. 14, fig. 3 Penaeus adspersus Tilesius, 1818, Neue Ann. Wetterau. Ges. Naturk. 1(1) : 4, pl. 21a, fig. 1 4. The descriptions and figures given by Bose and Tilesius respectively have been discussed in some detail in a paper by myself published in 1952 (Occ. Pap. Allan Hancock Found. 12 : 166, 167). In each case both description and figure are extremely poor and cannot be assigned with certainty to any known species, though they show some resemblance to the species now known as Leander tenuicornis (Say, 1818). Neither of these nomina dubia serves any useful purpose and it is accordingly recommended that both of these names should now be suppressed by the Commission under its Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority, though not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 5. Finally, the present opportunity may conveniently be taken to draw attention to the name Astacus locusta Fabricius (J.C.), 1781 (Spec. Ins. 1 : 513), a name which was not mentioned in my earlier application. This name is a senior subjective synonym of Palaemon tenuicornis Say, 1818, discussed above, but it cannot be used for that species, for that name is invalid in the genus Astacus, where it is a junior secondary homonym of Astacus locusta (Linnaeus, 1758) (=Cancer locusta Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 634) through the action of Pennant (1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) 4 : 21) in transferring locusta 296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Linnaeus to the genus Astacus. The specific name locusta Linnaeus is the valid name for the species concerned, which is currently placed in the genus Gammarus Fabricius, 1775. In order to complete the action required in this case, (i) the specific name locusta Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Astacus locusta should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with a note that it is invalid for the reason explained above, and (ii) the specific name locusta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Cancer locusta, should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 6. The concrete proposals which I now submit and which I regret were not included among the recommendations previously submitted are that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, when taking its decision on my earlier application, should in addition :— (1) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the under-mentioned specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— (a) communis Anslijn, 1826, as published in the combination Palaemon communis ; (b) adspersus Tilesius, 1818, as published in the combination Penaeus adspersus ; (c) punctatissimus Bosc, [1801-1802], as published in the combination Penaeus punctatissimus ; (2) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) the three specific names specified in (1) above, as there proposed to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; (b) locusta Fabricius (J.C.), 1781, as published in the combination Astacus locusta (invalid, because a junior secondary homonym of locusta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer locusta, through the action of Pennant (1777) in trans- ferring that species to the genus Astacus) ; (3) place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— locusta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer locusta. 4 a . PUR: MeeLy = Fr VOT 1957 CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) New Applications Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Phrynosoma Wiegmann, 1828 (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata) (H. M. Smith) a ee Me: BS oy = Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to preserve the generic names Iiptena Westwood, [1851], and Pentila Westwood, [1851] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) for use in their accustomed sense (Francis Hemming & H. Stempffer) Proposed designation under the Plenary Powers of a type species in harmony with accustomed usage for the genus Centris Fabricius, 1804, and proposed validation under the same Powers of the specific name dimidiata Fabricius, 1793 (Apis) (C. D. Michener) ef. ie oe s ae ae Proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the question whether in the case of a zoological name in which two adjacent vowels constitute separate syllables a symbol signifying the diaeresis should under Article 20 be placed over the second of the vowels concerned (Secretary to the International Commission) Supplementary action under the Plenary Powers recommended for the purpose of securing that the name Palaemon adspersus Rathke, 1837, shall be the oldest available name for the taxon in question (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) (L. B. Holthuis) Page 267 280 287 292 294 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Comments on Applications Page Mansonia Blanchard, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (pro- posal by A. Stone & K. L. Knight) : support by H. D. Pratt.. 279 Liptena and Pentila, both of Westwood, [1851] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (proposal by F. Hemming & H. Stempffer) : support by N. D. Riley .. ; 286 IMPORTANT NOTICE TO NEW SUBSCRIBERS Attention is drawn to the work “ Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ’’, in which are published the decisions taken by the International Commission on applications published in the “‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’’. This work is issued in Parts as soon as possible after decisions have been taken on individual cases. It is an indispensable work of reference for all Institutions concerned with systematic zoology or palaeontology. Full particulars are obtainable from the Publications Officer, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. cee aa tt EEE nInEnE NSS NSE Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper Limtrep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 VOLUME 13. Double-Part 10/11 30th December 1957 pp. 297—322, i-xxviii. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 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 eppliontions pies in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : ‘ shots 5 ene Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in certain Cases... wa oy at a om fs Ne eae Oe (continued inside back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1957 Price Two Pounds, Seven Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) n eat 1948) Apel m der Honda Univers mu Bola: ugust 1953) ( poms: cn) a bela’: aes og 1058 auelaee ie 2 N.Y., U.S.A.) at mn tne ln Ina airs Vienna, Anstria) (6th ee Hiroe Hsiroe Universi, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Bat ave (Museum Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- eres Enrico Pn (a tt Sot Doria”, Geno, Italy) (16th ~ 6 JAN 1958 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ~~ ae! I - °° SeRegmeenccs cose en een ree Volume 13, Double-Part 10/11 (pp. 297—322, i—xxviii) 30th December 1957 a i 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. Nomenel. 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 Nomenclature 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. 13, Double-Part 10/11) of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing, and in duplicate, to the Secretary to the Commission, as quickly as possible and in any case, in sufficient time to enable the communica- tion 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 Notice 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 cases :— (1) Selene Lacépéde, 1803 ; rostrata Lesueur, 1817 (Muraena) ; latipinna Lesueur, 1821 (Mollienesia) ; fuscus Storer, 1839 (Syngnathus) : establishment of precedence of, over other names published in the same work and on the same date (Class Pisces) (Z.N (S.) 952) ; 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology (continued) (2) Monograptus fimbriatus var. similis Elles (G.L.) & Wood (E.M.R.), 1913; Monograptus triangulatus var. major Elles & Wood, 1913; Monograptus communis var. rostratus Elles & Wood, 1913 : designation of lectotypes for (Class Graptolithina) (Z.N.(S.) 1248). 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. 8. 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 serial publications Nature and Science. (ec) Accounts of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the year 1956 Attention is drawn to the publication in the present Part of the Accounts of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the year 1956 and of the Balance Sheet as at 3lst December 1956. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 30th December 1957. ==. se eS ee lm. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 299 PROPOSED AMPLIFICATION IN CERTAIN RESPECTS OF THE SUGGESTED “ DECLARATION ”’ RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTED UNDER ARTICLE 14 WHEN A SPECIFIC NAME IS PUBLISHED IN AN ABBREVIATED FORM By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1042) Two suggestions are here put forward for the amplification of the Declaration which I recommended in Application Z.N.(S.) 1042 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 13 : 210—212) should be adopted by the International Commission for the purpose of clarifying the procedure to be adopted under Article 14 of the Regles in the case of a specific name published in an abbreviated form. 2. These suggestions are :— (a) a proposal submitted by myself arising out of a letter which I recently received from Mr. Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr (Creole Petroleum Corporation, Jusepin, Monagas, Venezuela) ; (b)a proposal submitted by Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) in a note in which he recorded his support for the adoption of the Declaration which I had recommended. 8. The proposal now submitted by myself has as its object the exclusion from the scope of the proposed Declaration of a specific name consisting of a word compounded (i) of the surname of a person, and (ii) preceded by one or more of that person’s initials. To take one of the examples cited by Mr. Dusenbury, it was never my intention to recommend that a specific name consisting of the word “ alowensi’’, composed of a latinised version in the genitive singular of the modern surname “ Owens ”’, preceded by the initials “ A.L.”, should be expanded to include a full writing-out of the names represented by above initials “ A.L.”’ even if the words represented by these initials could be ascertained. The proper course in my view, is that such a name as alowensi should be treated as an arbitary combina- tion of letters in the same way as the International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, directed that a specific name consisting of a phonetic reproduction of the initials of persons should be treated. Mr. Dusenbury’s letter and my reply are Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 18, Double-Part 10/11. December 1957. 300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature reproduced in Annexe 1 to the present note. The proposal which I submit for the clarification of the above matter is set out in paragraph 4 of my letter to Mr. Dusenbury. 4. Professor Bradley’s proposal, which is reproduced in Annexe 2, is that the Declaration should provide that in the case of a name published after the close of 1957 no name published in an abbreviated form, other than a name compounded of a cardinal number printed as a number instead of being printed as a word, should possess any status in zoological nomenclature. 5. Finally, it would, I think, be well that it should be made clear in the Régles in some appropriate form that no generic name, whatever its date of publication, possesses the status of availability if published in an abbreviated form. This provision seems to be necessary, for a generic name, to be acceptable, should be published in such a way as to make it clear at once to all zoologists—and not merely to specialists in the group concerned— whether it is a homonym of some previously published name and whether a given name, if subsequently published, would be liable to rejection as a junior homonym of a name published in this objectionable way. ANNEXE 1 Correspondence between Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr. (Jusepin, Monagas, Venezuela) and Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (a) Letter dated 4th August 1957 addressed by Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr. to Francis Hemming Specific names published in an abbreviated form Floyd Hodson (1926, “‘ Venezuelan and Caribbean Turritellas ’, Bulletins of American Paleontology 11 (No. 45) : 201, 204—205) described two new fossil gastropods which he named “ Twrritella plebeia Say A-L- Woensi, n. subsp.” and ‘“‘ Turritella G-A- Weaveri, n.sp.”. Because of the rules against capitalisation of specific names and against the employment of hyphens in specific names, the paleontologists of our company have been writing these names as ‘‘ alowensi” and ‘‘ gaweaveri’’. Hodson’s description of these forms states that the first was “‘ named in honor of Mr. A. L. Owens, Geologist for the Standard Oil Company of Venezuela ’’ and that the second was “ named in honor of Mr. G. A. Weaver who was an invaluable collaborator in the field work during 1924—25 ”. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301 Obviously, initials are a form of abbreviation, hence, if your proposal (Bull, zool. Nomencl. 13 : 210—212) to spell out all abbreviated specific names is adopted, as I think it should be, it would necessitate emending Hodson’s names to include the complete first and middle names of the two geologists honoured by him. By referring to old membership lists of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, I find that A. L. Owens is Allen L. Owens and that G. A. Weaver is George A. Weaver, but I have so far been unable to ascertain their middle names. Doubtless, this could be accomplished with sufficient expenditure of time and effort. Do you advise me to pursue this course ? Or can you suggest an easier one ? (b) Reply dated 10th September 1957 addressed to Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr. by Francis Hemming Names published in an abbreviated form In reply to your letter of the 4th August, I should explain that it was my intention in putting forward Application Z.N.(S.) 1042 (Hemming, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 210—212) to seek a decision from the Commission as to the treatment to be accorded to names published in an abbreviated form in cases where the words of which those names consisted were either Latin or Latinised words of a clearly recognisable kind. You will remember that the example which I cited was that of the word “ americ.” which was clearly an abbreviated form of the Latinised word “ americanus ’’. 2. It was certainly no part of my idea that the proposed Declaration should involve the writing out in full of the initials of the first name or first names of a zoologist in those cases where such initials were incorporated with the surname of that zoologist in a specific name. 3. In my view, it is very undesirable that specific names should be formed in this way. When, however, such a name is published, it should be treated in the same way as names based upon a phonetic reproduction of the initials of a zoologist, as regards which a Ruling has already been given by the International Congress of Zoology. This latter problem was raised by Mr. R. G. Fennah in connection with the name veedee published by Ross in 1943 in the combination Aglaostigma veedee. Fennah explained that this specific name was presumably intended to represent the initials “V.D.” written phonetically, these letters being the initials of E. C. Van Dyke and E. P. Van Duzee, both of whom were listed as collectors of the species concerned. (Fennah, 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 8—9). This application was considered by the Commission in Paris in 1948 and it was then decided to ask the International Congress of Zoology to insert words in the Régles which would secure that a name such as veedee Ross would become an available name (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 252). The basis of the decision then taken was that a name such as veedee should be treated as an arbitrary combination of letters. 302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. In order to make this matter absolutely clear I propose, now that you have raised this special case, to recommend to the Commission that the following new Point (c) should be inserted in the proposed Declaration. (c) The foregoing provisions do not apply to a specific name based upon a modern patronymic comprising not only the surname, but also one or more of the initials, of the person in whose honour the specific name was devised, a name so published to be treated as an arbitrary combination of letters. 5. I propose further to recommend that the “ Recommendation ” which now forms Point (c) of the proposal, which would become Point (d), should be expanded to cover names falling in the suggested new (c) above as well as in the original (a) above, that is to say that it should be recommended that authors should avoid (i) publishing specific names in abbreviated form, and (ii) devising specific names consisting of words comprising the initials of a person as well as that person’s surnames. (c) Letter dated 6th October 1957 addressed by Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr. to Francis Hemming I am very much pleased with your solution of the problem of the specific name based upon a modern patronymic and including initials, and I wish to support your proposed recommendation to the Commission covering the point I raised. Your solution will promote stabilization of the nomenclature, for it will allow us to continue to use the name T'urrutella plebeia alowensit Hodson and Turritella gaweaveri Hodson as before. ANNEXE 2 Support for and proposed extension of the “‘ Declaration ’’ suggested by Secretary Hemming to cover the case of a name proposed in an abbreviated form By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) I wish to express my support of the Declaration proposed by the Secretary. But the practice of proposing a name in abbreviated form is so abominable that I recommend that it be outlawed for the future. Therefore, may I suggest the following provision to replace paragraph (c), the ‘‘ Recommendation ”’. “Subsequent to the year 1957, the name of a taxon pro in an abbreviated form shall have no status in nomenclature, either under the Law of Priority, or the Law of Homonymy. But this shall not be construed to apply to a name compounded with a cardinal numeral which is not written as a word ”’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SET ASIDE IN THE INTERESTS OF STABILITY “ FIRST REVISER * SELECTIONS MADE FOR THE GENERIC NAME “SELENE” LACEPEDE, 1803, AND FOR THE SPECIFIC NAMES “ ROSTRATA ” LESUEUR, 1817 (‘‘ MURAENA’’), ‘‘LATIPINNA’’ LESUEUR, 1821 (‘* MOLLIENESIA ’’), AND ‘‘ FUSCUS ’’ STORER, 1839 (“ SYNGNATHUS ”) (CLASS PISCES) By REEVE M. BAILEY (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 952) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to set aside long-neglected “first reviser ” selections for the names of one genus and three common species of American fishes, each of these being a case where application of the decision by the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 66-67) to substitute the “ first reviser”’ principle for that of page precedence would result in undesirable and unnecessary changes in accustomed practice. Each of the taxa concerned was originally named at least twice by its describer in the same publication. In each case the name selected by the “ first reviser ’’ has been used only infrequently by subsequent workers or is wholly unfamiliar. The names which it is desired to protect are on the other hand in general use. Both the genus and the three species concerned are geographically widespread, and two of the species involved are well known to non-zoologists. The generic name which it is desired to conserve is Selene Lacépéde, 1803 ; the corresponding specific names are : rostrata Lesueur, 1817, as published in the combination Muraena rostrata ; latipinna Lesueur, 1821, as published in the combination Mollienesia latipinna ; fuscus Storer, 1839, as published in the combination Syngnathus fuscus. These names are discussed in turn below. ** Selene ’? Lacépéde, 1803 (Order Perciformes, Carangidae) 2. This generic name was introduced by Lacépéde, 1803 (Hist. nat. Poissons, 4 : 560), for Selene argentea Lacépéde, 1803. At the same time Argyreiosus Lacépéde (op. cit. 4 : 566) was proposed for Zeus vomer Linnaeus, 1758 Giinther, 1860 (Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus. 2 : 458), was apparently the first to Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Double-Part 10/11. December 1957. 304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature recognize that the names argentea and vomer apply to the same species, and as “‘ first reviser”’ adopted Argyreiosus as the generic name. Following the principle of position precedence, however, most subsequent authors have employed Selene: Jordan & Gilbert, 1883 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 16 : 439) ; Jordan & Evermann, 1896 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47(1) : 935); Smith, 1907 (N. Card. geol. and econ. Surv. 2 : 210); Meek & Hildebrand, 1925 (Field Mus. nat. Hist., Zool. 15(2) : 371); Bigelow & Welsh, 1925 (Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 40(1) : 236) ; Hildebrand & Schroeder, 1928 (Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 43(1) : 224) ; Breder, 1929 (Field Book of Marine Fishes of the Atlantic Coast, Putnam’s Sons, N.Y. and London : 138); Ginsburg, 1952 (Inst. mar. Sci. 2(2) : 112) ; Bigelow & Schroeder, 1953 (Fishery Bull. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. 53(74) : 379). A preponderant majority of authors have followed these and other general works in their use of Selene. Jordan, Evermann, & Clark, 1930 (Rep. US. Comm. Fish. for 1928 (Pt. 2) : 275), however, in recognizing the principle of first reviser, reinstated Argyreiosus. They have been followed infrequently, “ Anguilla rostrata ’’ (Lesueur), 1817 (Order Anguilliformes, Anguillidae). 3. The lengthy synonymy of the American eel is listed in Jordan, Evermann. & Clark, 1930 (Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish. for 1928 (Pt. 2) :77), and its nomenclature and synonymy have been discussed, among others, by Bean, 1909 (Science (n.s.), 29 : 871-872), Jordan, 1917 (Copeia, No. 49 : 86), and Ginsburg, 1951 (Texas J. Sci. 3(3) : 435), all of whom employ the specific name rostrata. Lesueur, 1817 (J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1 (No. 5)), named the species five times in the following sequence of precedence: Muraena rostrata (: 81), Muraena bostoniensis (: 81), Muraena serpentina (: 81); Muraena argentea (: 82), and Muraena macrocephala (: 82). That the names rostrata and bostoniensis apply to the same species was apparently first recorded by Giinther, 1870 (Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus. 8 : 31), who selected the name bostoniensis as the name to be used for this species. 4. The junior synonym, Anguilla chrisypa Rafinesque, was employed commonly until 1909 (Bean, op. cit.). Since then the name rostrata Lesueur has been used by most authors, e.g., Schmidt, 1924 (Rep. Smithson. Inst. for 1924 : 279); Bigelow & Welsh, 1925 (Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 40(1) : 236) ; Jordan, Evermann, & Clark, 1930 (Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish. for 1928 (Pt. 2) : 361); Ege, 1939 (Dana Rept. 16 : 89); and Bertin, 1956 (Hels, a biological Study. London : 167). Jordan, 1929 (Man. Vert. Animals Northeastern U.S. (13th ed. : 56), however, called attention to the selection of bostoniensis by Giinther, the first reviser, and employed this name, as did Hubbs and his associates, among others, until the rule of first reviser was invalidated (temporarily) by the International Congress of Zoology in 1948. Thus rostrata, with position precedence, was revalidated. After reverting to the rule of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305 first reviser following the Copenhagen Congress in 1953, it is again correct under the Rules to call the American eel by the specific name bostoniensis. Practically all American workers, however, now prefer the customary name, Anguilla rostrata (Lesueur). ** Poecilia ’’ (or “* Mollienesia ’’) “‘ latipinna ’’ (Lesueur), 1821 (Order Cyprinodontiformes, Poeciliidae) 5. Lesueur, 1821 (J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 2(1) : 3-4), described Mollienesia latipinna (from New Orleans) and Poecilia multilineata (from East Florida). It appears that Agassiz, 1853 (Amer. J. Sci. Arts, (2) 16 : 135) was the first to indicate that these names apply to the same species. He wrote :— “You may remember the remarkable genus Mollienesia described by Lesueur from specimens obtained from Lake Ponchartrain and from Florida. If you do not, pray look for the figures in the Journal of the Acad. of Nat. Sci., vol. 2, to appreciate the facts here mentioned. From its structure and from the sexual differences observed among other Cyprinodonts, I have long entertained the opinion that this genus had been established upon the males of Poecilia multilineata also described by Lesueur (same Journal), and both admitted as distinct in the great natural history of fishes by Cuvier and Valenciennes. Having found both together in all the Gulf States, I have watched them carefully, and in Mobile as well as in New Orleans, I have seen them day after day in copulation during the months of April and May; so that their specific identity is now an established fact. I have caught hundreds of them and found all the Poecilias to be females and all the Mollinesias males ; and what is further very interesting, the females viviparous. I have been able to trace their whole embryonic development in the body of the mother, in selecting specimens in different stages of gestation ”’. 6. Later, 1855 (ibid. 19 : 136), Agassiz reaffirmed his conviction that these nominal species were identical and clearly indicated his choice of name: “ . . all those that answer to the description of Mollienesia latipinna are males and all those corresponding to the description of Poecilia multilineata are females. There are several species of this family much smaller than this Poecilia multilineata [italics mine] ”. Thus Agassiz, as first reviser, selected the name multilineata. Giinther, 1866 (Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus. 6 : 348), perhaps unaware of Agassiz’s brief papers, also regarded the two nominal species as identical and chose the name latipinna. To my knowledge all subsequent authors have followed this action. In the interest of stability it is hoped that Mollienesia latipinna Lesueur may be added to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in preference to the name Poecilia multilineata Lesueur. According to individual subjective judgment this species is currently placed either in the genus Poecilia or in the genus Mollienesia. 306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “* Syngnathus fuscus ’’ Storer, 1839 (Order Syngnathiformes, Syngnathidae) 7. The only western-Atlantic pipefish found north of Chesapeake Bay, Hildebrand & Schroeder, 1925 (Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 43(1) : 182) was originally named twice, as Syngnathus fuscus and as Syngnathus peckianus by Storer, 1839 (Fishes of Massachusetts: 162-163). Shortly thereafter Storer, 1846 (Syn. Fishes N. Amer. : 491 [: 238 in separate]) recognized that these nominal species were identical and selected the name Syngnathus peckianus as the name to be used for this species. This name was employed also by Giinther, 1870 (Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus. 8: 157) & Jordan, 1929 (Man. Vert. Animals Northeastern U.S. (13th ed.) : 114). The name fuscus has had general usage (the species being variously assigned to the genera Syngnathus, Siphostoma, and Syrictes), for example by Jordan & Gilbert, 1883 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 16 : 383); Jordan & Evermann, 1896 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47(1) : 770) ; Smith, 1907 (N. Carol. geol. and econ. Surv. 2: 171); and Bigelow & Welsh, 1925 (Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 40(1) : 175); Hildebrand & Schroeder, 1928 (Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 43(1) : 182); Breder, 1929 (Field Book of Marine Fishes of the Atlantic Coast, Putnam’s Sons: 103); Jordan, Evermann, & Clark, 1930 (Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish. for 1928 (Pt. 2) : 242); Herald, 1942 (Stanford Ich. Bull. 2(4) : 133) ; and Bigelow & Schroeder, 1953 (Fishery Bull. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. 53(74) : 312). 8. For the reasons set forth above the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked in the interest of stability and universality in nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside, in respect of each pair of names specified below, all selections made by First Revisers as to the relative precedence to be accorded to the names specified in Col. (1) and Col. (2) respectively, the names comprised in each of the pairs concerned being names published in the same work and on the same date as one another and being names currently regarded by specialists as applicable to the same taxon :— Name proposed to be Name proposed to be used in preference to rejected in favour of name specified in Col. (2) name specified in Col. (1) (1) (2) (i) Selene Lacépéde, 1803 Argyreiosus Lacépéde, 1803 (ii) rostrata Lesueur, 1817, as bostoniensis Lesueur, 1817, published in the combinat- as published in the com- ion Muraena rostrata bination Muraena bos- toniensis _-=— re cc - a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307 Name proposed to be Name proposed to be used in preference to rejected in favour af name specified in Col. (2) name specified in Col. (1) (1) (2) (iii) latipinna Lesueur, 1821, as multilineata Lesueur, 1821, published in the combina- as published in the com- tion Mollienesia latipinna bination Poecilia multi- lineata (iv) fuscus Storer, 1839, as pub- peckianus Storer, 1839, as lished in the combination published in the combina- Syngnathus fuscus tion Syngnathus peckianus (b) to direct that in the case of the names comprised in each of the pairs of names specified in (a) above the name specified in Col. (1) be accorded precedence over the name specified in Col. (2) ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Selene Lacépéde, 1803, a name taking precedence over the name Argyreiosus Lacépéde, 1803, under the Ruling given under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Jordan & Gilbert (1883): Selene argentea Lacépéde, 1803) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) rostrata Lesueur, 1817, as published in the combination Muraena rostrata, a name taking precedence over the name bostoniensis Lesueur, 1817, as published in the combination Muraena bostoniensis, under the Ruling given under the Plenary Powers in (1) (b) above ; (b) latipinna Lesueur, 1821, as published in the combination Mollienesia latipinna, a name taking precedence over the name multilineata Lesueur, 1821, as published in the combination Poecilia multilineata, under the Ruling given under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above ; (c) fuscus Storer, 1839, as published in the combination Syngnathus fuscus, a name taking precedence over the name peckianus Storer, 1839, as published in the combination Syngnathus peckianus, under the Ruling given under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above ; (d) vomer Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Zeus vomer. 308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9. The present application has been transmitted to a number of representative ichthyologists in Canada and the United States. The following persons support all items of paragraph 8 : Henry B. Bigelow, James E. Boéhlke, Charles M. Breder, Jr., W. I. Follett, William A. Gosline, Earl 8. Herald, Robert H. Kanazawa, Ernest A. Lachner, Giles W. Mead, Robert Rush Miller, Edward C. Raney, C. Richard Robins, William C. Schroeder, Leonard P. Schultz, W. B. Scott, Royal D. Suttkus, William Ralph Taylor, Vadim D. Vladykov, Loren P. Woods. John L. Hart also supports the application except that he expresses no opinion on latipinna. William E. Ricker supports retention of rostrata, but expresses no opinion on the other names. Among the respondents none objects to any of the items set out in paragraph 8. 10. So far as is known, the generic name Selene Lacépéde, 1803, has never been taken as the base for a family-group name. This genus is currently assigned to the family carancipar. Accordingly, no family-group-name problem arises in the present case. SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION REGARDING THE GENERIC NAME “ LABECERAS ”’ SPATH, 1925 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) By D. T. DONOVAN (Department of Geology, University of Bristol) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1154) (For the application here referred to see Bull. zool. Nomenel. 18 : 213-215) (Letter dated 6th September 1957) I am writing to support Mr. C. W. Wright’s application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to designate Labeceras bryant Whitehouse, 1926, as the type species of the genus Labeceras Spath, 1925. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309 REQUEST FOR A RULING DETERMINING THE AUTHORSHIP TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE WORK ENTITLED “ HISTOIRE NATURELLE DES POISSONS ’’ WRITTEN PARTLY BY CUVIER AND PARTLY BY VALENCIENNES AND PUBLISHED IN THE PERIOD 1828-1850 By REEVE M. BAILEY (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1228) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give a Ruling as to the authorship to be attributed to names published in the period 1828-1850 in the work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Poissons under the combined authorship of Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.) and Valenciennes (A.). This is one of the most important works in ichthyology and now that it is known that, contrary to general previous belief, Cuvier and Valenciennes were not jointly responsible for the whole work, it is important in the interests of stability and uniformity that an authoritative Ruling should be given as to the authorship of the many important names first published in this work. The Histoire Naturelle was published in two simultaneous editions during the period 1828-1850. The Regular Edition consists of 22 octavo volumes of text and one of plates. The Strasbourg Delux Edition, in royal octavo, has 22 volumes, each with the same text coverage as the Regular Edition, but the plates are distributed through the volumes. The pagination differs in the two editions. 2. Traditionally, the many names originally proposed in the Histoire Naturelle have been attributed to both authors jointly. The title pages of all volumes bear the names Cuvier and Valenciennes. But the signatures appearing Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Double-Part 10/11. December 1957 310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in the volumes themselves (see Bailey, 1951, Copeia No. 3 : 249-251) reveal the actual authorship. Each author prepared certain volumes or parts of volumes : Cuvier wrote volumes 1, 3, 4, and 5; Valenciennes drafted volumes 10-22 (after Cuvier’s death) ; and volumes 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were written in part by each, the exact pagination being specified in the table of contents of the volume concerned. Thus, while “‘ Cuvier and Valenciennes ”’ constitutes a convenient and simple form of citation, it is not an accurate attribution of authorship. Even as one credits ‘‘ Lesueur, in Cuvier & Valenciennes ”’ for a description contributed by another collaborator in the preparation of this monumental work, by analogy one should write ‘‘ Cuvier (or Valenciennes), in Cuvier & Valenciennes ’’ if one wishes to denote both authorship and place of publication. 8. Since 1951 (Bailey, op. cit.) many authors have adopted the practice of attributing species in accordance with designated authorship. One reason for failure to do so is the uncritical but common practice of copying authority from older works. The determination of true authorship in the Histoire Naturelle is somewhat obscure and there are two editions that differ in pagination. Table 1 in the Annexe to the present application shows the responsible author for those volumes prepared in part by both men. The pagination given is that in the (original) Regular Edition. Table 2 shows the dates of publication. 4. In view of the above, I make the following requests to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) that it give a Ruling that the new names included in the work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Poissons written partly by Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.) and partly by Valenciennes (A.) and published in the period 1828-1850 be attributed to Cuvier or, as the case may be, to Valenciennes and dated in accordance with the particulars relating to authorship and date set out in the Annexe attached to the present application, save as regards the new names published for a small number of species, the descriptions of which in the above work are clearly marked as having been written by some other author ; (2) that it place the above work endorsed as in (1) above on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 311 ANNEXE Authorship of various portions and Dates of Publication of the “ Histoire Naturelle des Poissons ’’ by Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1828-1850 TABLE 1 Authorship Pagination Regular Strasbourg Author Edition Edition 1-238 1-177 Cuvier 238-249 177-185 Valenciennes 249-262 185-195 Cuvier 262-386 195-290 Valenciennes 387-490 291-371 Cuvier 1-425 1-320 Valenciennes 426-491 321-369 Cuvier 493-559 371-420 Valenciennes 1-440 1-330 Cuvier 441-531 331-379 Valenciennes 1-470 1-346 Cuvier 471-509 347-375 Valenciennes 1-198 1-147 Cuvier 199-329 148-244 Valenciennes 330-359 244-266 Cuvier 359-371 266-275 Valenciennes 372-427 276-316 Cuvier 429-512 317-379 Valenciennes Volumes 1, 3, 4, and 5 are by Cuvier; volumes 10-22 by Valenciennes. 312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TABLE 2 Dates of Publication Octavo issue Date merce (from title page) Date of Publication Volume 1828 Oct. 1828 1829 Apr. 1829 1829 Nov. 1829 1830 July 1830 1830 Sept. 1830 1831 Apr. 1831 1831 Jan. 1832 1833 Mar. 1833 1835 Sept. 1835 1836 July 1836 1837 Mar. 1837 1839 Apr. 1839 1839 Jan. 1840 1840 Nov. 1840 1842 Aug. 1842 1844 July 1844 1846 Aug. (or Sept.) 1846 1846 May 1847 1847 Nov. 1847 1848 Sept. 1848 1849 Jan. 1850 (i.e., end of 1849) * From Sherborn (1925, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9), 15 : 600) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE FOR THREE TAXA BELONGING TO THE CLASS GRAPTOLITHINA LECTOTYPES WHICH WILL SECURE THE CONTINUED USE OF THE NAMES CONCERNED IN THEIR ACCUSTOMED SENSE By 0. M. B. BULMAN, Sc.D., F.R.S. (Cambridge University, Department of Geology, Cambridge) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1248) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to stabilise the usage of three names in the Class Graptolithina by designating for the taxa concerned lectotypes in harmony with the current interpretation of those taxa. In each case the need for the action now recommended has arisen through the injudicious selection as the lectotype of a syntype which does not agree either with the original description or with the current interpretation of the unit in question. The problem described above has come to light in the course of a revision of the Triangulate Monograptids from the gregarius zone (Lower Llandovery) undertaken by Mrs. Margaret Sudbury (née Walker) in this Department. Arrangements are being made for the early publication of Mrs. Sudbury’s revision and it would greatly increase the value of that work and promote stability in the nomen- clature of the group concerned if it were possible for the International Commission to take decisions on the questions now submitted before that paper is published. Particulars of the three cases concerned are given in the following paragraphs. Case No. 1 8. The name with which we are here primarily concerned is Monograptus fimbriatus var. similis Elles (G.L.) & Wood (E.M.R.), 1913 (Mon. Brit. Grapt., Palaeont. Soc. (9) : 483, pl. xlviii, figs. 5a—d, text-fig. 339). In 1941 (Rozpr. teské Akad. 52 (No. 30) : 8) Pribyl (A.) & Minch (A.) selected as the lectotype of this taxon the specimen figured by Elles & Wood as fig. 5a. Those authors’ material is now in the Sedgwick Museum and Birmingham University and an examination of the specimen figured by them under the above number shows that the figure in question is inaccurate and misleading, since the proximal end of this specimen does not in fact show the sicula, and it can only be identified as similis with reserve. a Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 18, Double-Part 10/11. December 1957. 314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8. As a result of the foregoing lectotype selection, the name similis Elles & Wood can no longer be applied with certainty to the species customarily so known and becomes virtually a nomen dubium. In the interest of stability in nomenclature the International Commission is asked to use its Plenary Powers to set aside the lectotype selection described above and in its place to designate as the lectotype of similis the specimen illustrated by Elles & Wood as text-fig. 339 (original in the Sedgwick Museum, registered under the Museum Number A21479), the interpretation of which is not open to any doubt. Case No. 2 4, The second of the taxa to be considered was described as a variety of Rastrites triangulatus Harkness (R.), 1851 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 7 : 59, pl. 1, figs. 3a—d) under the name Monograptus triangulatus var. major Elles & Wood, 1913 (Mon. Brit. Grapt., Palaeont. Soc. (9) : 472, pl. xlvii, figs. 5a—d, text-figs. 328a, b). From among the specimens figured by Elles & Wood, Piibyl & Miinch (1941, loc. cit. : 6) selected as the lectotype of this taxon that illustrated as figure 5a. 5. A re-examination of the original material in the collection of the Geological Survey and Museum, London, the Sedgwick Museum and the British Museum (Natural History), has shown that the foregoing was a most unfortunate lectotype selection, for the specimen shown as fig. 5a is not referrable to major at all, being a true triangulatus Harkness. Accordingly, as matters now stand, the name major Elles & Wood falls as a junior subjective synonym of triangulatus Harkness, and the taxon hitherto known as major Elles & Wood is left without a name. In order to prevent the disturbance in current practice which would result from the foregoing changes, the International Commission is asked to use its Plenary Powers to set aside the lectotype selection discussed above and to designate as the lectotype of the foregoing taxon the specimen illustrated by Elles & Wood as text-fig. 328b, which is now preserved in the Geological Survey Museum under the Registered Number 26326. Case No. 3 6. The third of the taxa involved in the present application was described as a variety of Monograptus convolutus var. communis Lapworth (C.), 1876 (Geol. Mag. 18 : 358, pl. xiii, figs. 4a, 4b) under the name Monograptus communis var. rostratus by Elles & Wood, 1913 (Mon. Brit. Grapt., Palaeont. Soc. (9) : 481, pl. xlix, figs. 2a—c, text-fig. 337). In 1945 (Bull. int. Acad. tscheg. Sci. 54 (No. 19) : 31) Pribyl specified the specimen shown by Elles & Wood as figure 2a as the “ holotype ” [sic] of rostratus. This specimen was apparently so described by Pribyl because Elles & Wood stated that the above figure Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315 represented a “ typical specimen ” of rostratus, but this cannot be interpreted as a designation of the above specimen as the holotype, for in the same work Elles & Wood stated also that the specimen shown in their figure 2b was a “well-preserved and typical specimen”’. While therefore Piibyl was in error in regarding the specimen shown in figure 2a as the holotype of rostratus, the statement in his paper must be regarded as constituting a valid selection of that specimen to be the lectotype of this taxon. 7. A re-examination of the specimen illustrated by Elles & Wood as fig. 2a, which is now preserved in the collection of Geological Department of Birmingham University, shows that it does not belong to the same species as that described by Elles & Wood and illustrated in their other figures, being referable to a new species at present without a name (apart from rostratus). It would be highly confusing if this new species had to be known by the name rostratus Elles & Wood and if a new name had to be provided for the species described by those authors as rostratus and now universally known by that name. The International Commission is therefore asked to use its Plenary Powers to set aside the lectotype selection for rostratus Elles & Wood made by Pfibyl in 1945 and in its place to designate the specimen figured by those authors as fig. 2b (also shown as text-fig. 337) to be the lectotype of this taxon. The specimen so recommended is in the collection of the Geological Survey of Scotland, where it is preserved under the Registered Number 2630. Recommendations 8. The three names as now proposed to be interpreted under the Plenary Powers should all be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. So also should the names of the taxa (fimbriatus Nicholson; triangulatus Harkness ; communis Lapworth) which enter into this case by reason of the fact that the taxa now proposed to be interpreted were published as varieties of the taxa so named. It is therefore now recommended that the names triangulatus Harkness and communis Lapworth should be placed on the above Official List. A corresponding recommendation is not, however, now made in regard to the name fimbriatus, for, although this name represents a taxonomi- cally valid unit and certainly should be placed on the Official List, there are certain nomenclatorial problems associated with this name which require first to be considered. A separate application in regard to this name is in preparation for submission to the International Commission. 9. In the light of the considerations advanced above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to set aside all lectotype selections hitherto made for the nominal taxa specified in Col. (1) below and, having 316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature done so, to designate as their respective lectotypes the specimens severally specified in Col. (2) :— Nominal taxon for which it Specimen proposed to be is proposed that a designated under the Plenary lectotype be designated Powers to be the lectotype under the Plenary Powers of the nominal taxon specified in Col. (1) (1) (2) (a) Monograptus fimbriatus var. The specimen illustrated by similis Elles (G.L.) & Wood Elles & Wood as text-fig. (E.M.R.), 1913 339 now preserved in the Sedgwick Museum (Regd. No. A21479) (b) Monograptus triangulatus var. The specimen illustrated by major Elles & Wood, 1913 Elles & Wood as text-fig. 328b now preserved in the collection of the Geological Survey and Museum, London (Regd. No. 26326) (c) Monograptus communis var. The specimen illustrated by rostratus Elles & Wood, 1913 Elles & Wood as fig. 2b on pl. xlix (which is also the specimen shown on text-fig. 337) now preserved in the collection of the Geological Survey of Scotland (Regd. No. 2360) (2) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a). similis Elles (G.L.) & Wood (E.M.R.), 1913, as published in the combination Monograptus fimbriatus var. similis and as interpreted by the lectotype designated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(a) above ; (b) triangulatus Harkness (R.), 1851, as published in the combination Rastrites triangulatus ; (c) major Elles (G.L.) & Wood (E.M.R.), 1913, as published in the combination Monograptus triangulatus var. major and as interpreted by the lectotype designated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(b) above ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317 (d) communis Lapworth (C.), 1876, as published in the combination Monograptus convolutus var. communis ; (e) rostratus Elles (G.L.) & Wood (E.M.R.), 1913, as published in the combination Monograptus communis var. rostratus and as interpreted by the lectotype designated under the Plenary Powers in (1)(c) above. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A “ DECLARATION ”’ AUTHORISING THE USE OF THE SYMBOL FOR THE DIAERESIS By CHARLES H. BLAKE (Hillsboro, North Carolina, U.S.A.) (Commission Reference: Z.N. (S.) 1013) (For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 292-293) (Letter dated 12th October 1957) In connection with the proposal to make a declaration relative to the use of the diaeresis, I present the following considerations. So far as the ordinary languages of Western Europe are concerned, the diaeresis has only one function, namely, to indicate that two successive vowels are pronounced separately rather than as a diphthong. Since scientific names are, by definition, either of Latin origin or Latinized words of other languages, it would seem that the diaeresis can only be used in places where the Romans themselves would have used it. For example, it is necessary in aédon. On the other hand it is not necessary in Picoides. This is in spite of the fact that the diaeresis was originally published on the second 7 because it was used to show that the diphthong was pronounced as in Greek and not as in French. I cannot at the moment call to mind any case in which the same spelling with and without a diaeresis has different meanings but would not be surprised if such cases occur. I favor, then, the retention of the diaeresis in its proper places with the proviso that it not be confused with other diacritical marks. 318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE “ INDIANA ”’ CASE (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER OSTRACODA) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1159) (For the Plans referred to below as Alternative “‘A” and “B” respectively see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 :. 191-193) (a) Support for Alternative “ A ”’ (i) By VALDAR JAANUSSON & ANDERS MARTINSSON (Uppsala Universitets, Uppsala, Sweden) (Letter dated 29th September 1957) Both alternatives given in Z.N.(S.) 1159 are good solutions of the problem. We are, however, slightly in favour of Alternative ‘“‘A’”’ as it seems to be more in accordance with Matthew’s intentions. IJndianites Ulrich & Bassler, 1931, functions as a direct substitute for the genus which Matthew felt the need to create, and is founded on the false premise that Indiana ovalis is the type species of Matthew’s genus. (ii) By Mile. C. DECHASEAUX (Laboratoire de Paléontologie, Sorbonne, Paris) (Letter dated 15th October 1957) En recherchant, & la suite de votre lettre du 17 Sept. les notes concernant la rédaction, dans le Traité de Paléontologie des genres Bradoria, Indiana etc., je retrouve l’indication : Indiana type I. lippa, de préférence a I. ovalis c’est dire que l’Alternative “ A” que vous proposez est celle que je crois devoir adopter et ‘‘ défendre”’, voici pourquoi : (a) Si Indiana lippa est choisi pour type de Indiana, Vespéce Indiana ovalis ayant pour certains paléontologistes les caractéres d’une Bradoria sera placée dans ce genre. Aucun probléme ne se pose. (b) Si Indiana ovalis est choisie pour type de Indiana, les paléontologistes que lui reconnaissent des traits de Bradoria le nommeront Bradoria et mettront le nom d’Indiana en synonymie, ce qui me parait trés facheux car c’est un nom amplement consacré par l’usage. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319 Dans cette méme Alternative “B”, Indianites ayant pour type I. lippa, de nombreux stratigraphes et méme des paléontologistes continueront a appeller Indiana ce que la Commission aura décidé de nommer, avec Ulrich et Bassler Indianites, d’ow une confusion regrettable et une source d’erreurs dans des travaux de comparaisons entre des régions différentes, Cette deuxiéme alternative me parait done surtout présenter des inconvénients. (b) Support for Alternative “ B ”’ (i) By H. B. WHITTINGTON (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) (Letter dated 26th September 1957) I am not a specialist on Ostracods, but Professor Ernst Mayr has urged me to read Mr. Sylvester-Bradley’s application and to express an opinion. It seems to me that the alternate proposal “ B ” as published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 191— 193 is the more desirable solution to this difficult problem. (ii) By R. S. BASSLER (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Letter dated 10th October 1957 ) What a lot of trouble one ostracod can cause and how sorry I am that Ulrich & Bassler did not leave their second 1931 paper on Indiana unpublished (Wash. Acad. Sci.). Anyhow, Sylvester-Bradley’s Alternative “ B” seems to be the just decision giving credit to Matthew. I choose it. 320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION REGARDING THE BOOKLET “TESTACEA MINUTA RARIORA’’ BY BOYS & WALKER, [1784] By ARTHUR N. DUSENBURY, Jr. (Creole Petroleum Corp., Jusepin, Venezuela) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1205) (For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 228-229) (Letter dated 4th August 1957) I wish to support the proposal by Dr. Henning Lemche to reject the publication of William Boys and George Walker [1784] entitled ‘‘ Testacea minuta rariora, nuperrime detecta in arena littoris Sandvicensis (A Collection of the Minute and Rare Shells, lately discovered in the Sand of the Sea Shore near Sandwich)’. The nomenclature used in this booklet is clearly binary but not binominal. It could thus be considered valid up until 1948 but not thereafter. = The three polyverbial names cited by Dr. Lemche as evidence of the non- binominal character of the nomenclature were applied by Boys & Walker to shells which they apparently considered to be the calcareous tubes of the annelid worm Serpula Linnaeus, 1758. At present, all three shells are placed in the Phylum Protozoa, Class Rhizopoda, Order Foraminifera. In addition to the three species mentioned by Dr. Lemche, Boys & Walker described in this same booklet three other polyverbial species of “‘ Serpula’”’, and seven polyverbial species of ‘‘ Nautilus”’, all of them actually species of Foraminifera. These names were all replaced by acceptable binominal names, provided, like the three mentioned first, by Walker and Jacob, (1798). The rejection of the publication of Boys and Walker [1784] should thus cause no difficulties of importance in foraminiferal nomenclature. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A “ DECLARATION ”’ TO TREAT BARBAROUS WORDS AS EXEMPT FROM CHANGE IN GENDER - By LEO SHELJUZHKO (Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Munich, Germany) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) (1064) (For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 -239) (Letter dated 22nd June 1957) melas/melaina Was meine Meinung betrifft, nach der Sie mich anfragen, so bin ich volkommen mit Ihrer Ansicht einverstanden, dass in solchen Fallen, wie der Vorliegende, keine Anderung der Namen vorgenommen werden soll. Ich glaube namlich, dass solche Anderungen nur verwirrend wirken miissten. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 321 SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION TO VALIDATE THE SPECIFIC NAME “PARVULA ” MORCH, 1868, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION “ APLYSIA PARVULA ”’ (CLASS GASTROPODA) By H. ENGEL (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1209) (For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 240-244) (Letter dated 25th October 1957) I have pleasure in telling you that I to use the Plenary Powers to validate published in the combination Aplysia quite agree with the proposal of Dr. Eales the specific name parvula Mérch, 1863, as parvula (Class Gastropoda). SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL THAT “ “-OIDES ’? NAMES SHOULD BE CONSIDER GENDER (Commission Reference: Z.N. (S.) 951) “IDES ’’, “-ITES ’? AND ED TO BE OF MASCULINE (For the proposal in this case see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 203-205) (a) By W. A. MACFADYEN (London) (Letter dated 8th J uly 1957) I see in Nature of 22 June 1957, pp. 1279-1280 that comments are invited on the gender to be attributed to generic names with the terminations “ -tdes ”’ “ce ~ites ” and ee -oides ”° May I record it as my opinion that the gender should be masculine in all three cases. 322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature I refer to W. A. Macfadyen and E. J. A. Kenny: On the correct writing in form and gender, of the names of the Foraminifera, 1934 J. Roy. Microscopical Soc., 54 : 177-181 (in particular p. 178). In the opinion of the classical scholars then consulted, the structure of words with these terminations was held to indicate definitely that they were of masculine gender. (b) By MYRA KEEN (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 19th August 1957) With reference to the adoption of a Declaration prescribing gender for generic names ending in “ -ides’’, “ -ites”’, and ‘* oides ”’, I believe that a ruling that all such names should be regarded as of masculine gender would be desirable and in the interests of nomenclatural stability. CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) (a) New Applications Proposed amplification of the suggested Declaration relating to the procedure to be adopted when a specific name is published in an abbreviated form (Secretary to the International Commission) Selene Lacépéde, 1808; rostrata Lesueur, 1817 (Muraena) ; latipinna Lesueur, 1821 (Mollienesia) ; fuscus Storer, 1839 Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, 1828-1850, determination of authorship of, as between Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.) and Valenciennes (A.) (Reeve M. Bailey) S aA ay oe is oe Proposed designation, under the Plenary Powers, of lectotypes for three taxa originally established as belonging to the genus Monograptus (Class Graptolithina) (O. M. B. Bulman) .. be (b) Comments on Applications Labeceras Spath, 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (proposal by C. W. Wright) : support by D. T. Donovan ‘ Declaration recognising the use of the diaeresis symbol (proposal by the Secretary) : support by C. H. Blake aK ay ae Indiana Matthew, 1902(Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda) (proposal by P. C: Sylvester-Bradley): comments by (a) V. Jaanusson & A. Martinsson ; (b) Mlle. C. Dechaseaux ; (c) H. B. Whittington ; (d) R. S. Bassler 4 rs a ihe a ta. Ee “Testacea Minuta Rariora ” Boys & Walker, [1784] (proposal by H. Lemche) : support by A. N. Dusenbury, Jr, ate bs Page 299 303 309 313 308 318 320 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Comments on Applications (contd.) Page Declaration to secure that barbarous words are exempt from change in gender (proposal by the Secretary): support by L. Sheljuzhko om a ae ec =a Sui A parvula Mérch, 1863 (Aplysia) (Class ci Se (propo by N. B. Eales) : support by H. Engel ; 321 9° ee 93 > Declaration to secure that “ -ides -ites”” and “ -oides ’’ names be considered to be of masculine gender (proposal by the Secretary): support by (a) W. A. Macfadyen ; (b) Myra Keen 321 Also published in the present Part International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Accounts for the ee year 1956 and Balance Sheet as at 3lst December 1956 .. iii Issue of a Second Edition of the work ** Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature ”’ Arrangements have been made by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the publication in November 1957 of a limited Second Edition of this indispensable work, the original edition of which is now exhausted. The price of this new edition will be 25s. (or $3.75), post-free. & Institutions | and individuals desiring to obtain copies are advised to place their orders as . soon as possible. These should be addressed to the Publications Officer, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41 Queen’s Gate, London, ‘ S.W.7. . xa ¥yt Printed in England by Mrtcatre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 j VOLUME 13. Part 12 6th June, 1958 pp. 323-382, T.P.—X XV THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE puNcHAseD te! = 9 JUN 1958 Edited by fei hee FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CoNnTENTS : Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on an ae ae oe in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : 325 (continued on back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1958 Price Two Pounds, Twelve Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 13, Part 12 (pp. 323—382, T.P.—XXV 6th June 1958 PURCHASED = =«- (ign Esaki ~3 JUN 1958 1809-1957 Aa isso Zoologists generally and entomologists in particular will have learnt with great regret of the death on 14th December 1957 of Professor Teiso Esaki at the early age of fifty-eight. Professor Esaki occupied an outstanding position among Japanese zoologists and by his wide interests, the varied range of his publications, his friendly disposition and the help which he was always willing to give to others, was well known to, and greatly liked by, a wide circle of zoologists in many countries. 2. Professor Esaki, who was born on 15th July 1899, was educated at Tokyo University, where he graduated as B.Sc., later being advanced to the rank of D.Sc. For many years he was a member of the scientific staff of Kyushu University, where he held the chair of Professor of Entomology. Within the field of entomology Professor Esaki was keenly interested in questions of taxonomy and published extensively on the Order Hemiptera and to a slightly less extent on the Order Lepidoptera. He was much interested also in general biological questions and in the problems of zoogeography. In the course of his life he published some two hundred papers on these subjects. Of his separate publications the best known are his contributions to the work Iconographia Insectorum Japonicorum published in 1932 and to the work Insectorwm Japonicorum LIllustratio Iconographica published in 1938. 3. In addition to his extensive work as a specialist, Professor Esaki played an important part as a University teacher, many Japanese entomologists now well known as specialists having been his pupils. The importance of the part which he played in Japanese zoology and education was recognised by his election to be a member of the Science Council of Japan. 4. When still in his thirties Professor Esaki had already acquired such an outstanding position among Japanese men of science that in 1935 he was elected to be a member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in succession to the late Professor Chiyomatsu Ishikawa of the University of Tokyo. At the time of his death he had thus been a member A 324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the Commission for twenty-two years. Professor Esaki was keenly interested in the problems of zoological nomenclature and was a warm advocate of the policy of promoting stability in the scientific names of animals. He was most punctilious in the discharge of his duties as a member of the Commission, never failing to vote on issues submitted to that body for decision. 5. In his early years Professor Esaki spent a considerable time in Europe, working mainly in the Department of Entomology at the British Museum (Natural History). During this time he acquired a large number of European friends and later also others in the United States and elsewhere. He realised that the difficulty of the Japanese language for foreigners might become a serious stumbling block to the dissemination in other countries of knowledge of current work by Japanese specialists and he was always anxious to do anything in his power to mitigate this risk by encouraging the preparation of abstracts in English of papers published by his colleagues. With the same object in view much of his own work was written in English. When approached by foreign colleagues Professor Esaki never failed to render any assistance in his power, in particular being most kind in furnishing abstracts from, and translations of, important papers by Japanese workers which would otherwise have been inaccessible to specialists in other countries. 6. Professor Esaki’s death is a severe loss to Japanese zoology and will be widely regretted also by his many friends and admirers in other countries. FRANCIS HEMMING 3lst December 1957 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325 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 ”’ NorticE is hereby given that normally the International Commission will start to vote upon an application published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on the expiry of a period of six calendar months from the date of publication in the Bulletin of the application in question. Any specialist who may desire to comment upon the application published in the present Part of the Bulletin is accordingly invited to do so in writing, and in duplicate, 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. 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. (b) Plans for obtaining the approval of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958, for the text of the ‘‘ Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique’’ (Inter- national Code of Zoological Nomenclature), as revised by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Congresses in Paris in 1948 and at Copenhagen in 1953 respectively 3. Particular attention is drawn to the plans which have been made for obtaining the approval of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London is in July of this year of the text of the Régles Internationales de Nomenclature Zoologique (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature), as revised by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses in 1948 and 1953 respectively. 326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. The Draft of the English text, revised as above, has been published in Volume 14 (Parts 1-9), the first of the two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which have been specially earmarked by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature to serve as Agenda Volumes for the London Meetings. Comments on the Draft of the Régles and proposals for the further improvement of the Régles are being published in Volume 15 of the Bulletin, the second of the two London Agenda Volumes. 5. It is particularly hoped that as many zoologists as possible will study the draft of the Régles published in Volume 14 of the Bulletin and that, if they find in that Draft any matters on which they wish to offer observations, they will be so good as to send their comments as soon as possible to the Office of the Commission, in order that the comments so submitted may be published before the London Congress and thus placed on the Agenda Paper for consideration at that meeting. All such communications should be sent to the address given at the foot of this Notice. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, Lonpon, N.W.1, England. 5th January 1958. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327 PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY’? OF TWO GENERIC NAMES IN THE ORDER LEPIDOPTERA (CLASS INSECTA) AND TO THE * OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAMES BASED UPON THE GENERIC NAMES IN QUESTION By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1285) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology two well-known generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) and to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-group names based upon those generic names. Action under this latter head is particularly desirable because in each case the family- group name has been used by some authors in an incorrectly spelled version and these names should therefore be stabilised in order to prevent any further use of them in their incorrect form. The relevant particulars are given in the immediately following paragraphs. (1) “ Caligo *? Hiibner, [1819] Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (4) : 51 2. Westwood ([1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 341), specified Papilio teucer Linnaeus and Papilio eurilochus Cramer, [1775] as “ types ” of the genus Caligo Hiibner, but, as he specified two species and not one only, his action has no validity under Article 30 of the Régles. The first author definitely to select any of the originally included species to be the type species was Scudder who in 1875 (Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 129) so selected Papilio eurilochus Cramer, [1775], (Uitl. Kapellen 1(3) : 53, pl. 33, fig. A), and that species is therefore the type species of this genus. 3. The genus Caligo Hiibner is currently treated as the type genus of a subfamily of the family BRAssoLIDAE. This nominal family-group taxon was first established as CALIGONINAE by Fruhstorfer in [1912] (in Seitz, Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 13, Part 12. 6th June 1958. 328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Grossschmett. Erde 5(137) : 290). It was so spelled by several later authors until in 1932 (in Strand, Lep. Cat. 51 : 17, nota) Stichel corrected this name, pointing out that, if treated as the name of a family, it should be spelled CALIGINIDAE. In 1949 (Acta zool. lilloana 8 : 585) the spelling of this name was further emended by Orfila to catigmnaE. The word “ Caligo”’ is a common Latin noun of feminine gender, having “ caliginis”’ as its genitive singular. Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission, whom I have consulted, reports (in litt., 25th November 1957) that: ‘‘ The subfamily-name must be CALIGININAE”’. It is accordingly proposed that this name should now be placed on the Official List in the corrected spelling indicated by Professor Grensted, the incorrect spellings noted above being at the same time placed on the Official Index. In addition the junior homonym, Caligo Boisduval, 1870 (Consid. Lépid. Guatemala : 54) should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (2) “‘ Charaxes ’’ Ochsenheimer, 1816 Ochsenheimer, 1816, Schmett. Europa 4 : 18 4. The genus Charaxes was established by Ochsenheimer for one species only, namely Papilio jasius Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : Errata), which is therefore the type species by monotypy. The name originally given to this species by Linnaeus was Papilio jason (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 749), but, while this part of the Twelfth Edition of the Systema was passing through the press, Linnaeus realised that this name could not be used for this species, as it was a junior primary homonym of an earlier name published by himself, namely Papilio jason Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 485)*. Linnaeus thereupon accordingly put the matter right by introducing the substitute name Papilio jasius on the unnumbered “ Errata’ page at the end of the volume. 5. Charaxes Ochsenheimer is currently regarded as the type genus of a subfamily of the great family NYMPHALIDAE. The nominal family-group taxon having this genus as type genus was established by Doherty (W.) in 1886 (J. asiat. Soc. Bengal, Part II, 55(2) : 109, 124) as a family with the name CHARAXIDAE. In [1911] (in. Seitz, Grossschmett. Erde 13(107) : 122) Aurivillius, who treated this taxon as one of subfamily rank, altered the spelling of this name by inserting the letters “id” after the portion of the name derived * The name Papilio jason Linnaeus, 1758, is a nomen dubium not currently in use. If, as is possible, it is later found that this name constitutes a threat to some well-established name, it will be desirable that it should be suppressed under the Commission’s Plenary Powers. If it were found necessary to take such action, it would be important that the suppression should be in respect of the Law of Priority only and that this name should be kept alive for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy, since otherwise its suppression would invalidate the well-known name jasius Linnaeus, 1767, as the name for the type species of Charaxes Ochsenheimer. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 329 from Charaxes and before the subfamily termination “ -maEz”, thus giving to this name the form CHARAXIDINAE. Professor L. W. Grensted, who has been consulted on this question, has reported (in litt., 25th November 1957) as follows: ‘‘ Charaxes Ochsenheimer: Not a classical word, the nearest thing being the Latin name Charaxus. Presumably connected with the Greek Xapaoow (and our English word ‘ character’). There is no sign in either language of a stem ending in ‘ -id’ and I see no reason for anything except a masculine gender and CHARAXINAE as the name for the subfamily”. It is accor- dingly proposed that this family-group name should now be placed on the Official List in the form in which it was originally published by Doherty which, it is now seen, was the correct form. The Invalid Emendation CHARAXIDINAE published by Aurivillius should at the same time be placed on the Official Index, together with the Erroneous Subsequent Spelling cHaraxErp1 Wheeler, 1903 (Butts. Switz. : 99, 149). 6. There is an older generic name having Papilio jasius Linnaeus, 1767, as type species by selection by Crotch (1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 66), namely Paphia Fabricius, 1807 (Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 282). This name is, however, invalid as it is a junior homonym of Paphia [Réding], 1798 (Mus. bolten. 2:175). When (as now proposed) Charaxes Ochsenheimer is placed on the Official List, the name Paphia Fabricius should be placed on the Official Index, together with the following invalid names of later date: (a) Jasia Swainson, 1832 (Zool. Illustr. (2) 2: pl. 90) of which Papilio jasius Linnaeus is type species by original designation, this generic name being therefore a junior objective synonym of Charaxes Ochsenheimer ; (b) Iasius Westwood, [1850] (tn Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 306), an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Jasia Swainson, 1832. Recommendations 7. In the light of the considerations set forth in the preceding paragraphs the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked :— (1) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Caligo Hiibner, [1819] (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by Scudder (1875): Papilio eurilochus Cramer, (1775)) ; (b) Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816 (gender: masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Papilio jasius Linnaeus, 1767) ; (2) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) ewrtlochus Cramer, [1775], as published in the combination Papilio eurilochus (specific name of type species of Caligo Hiibner, [1819]) ; 330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) jasius Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Papilio jasius (specific name of type species of Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816); (3) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Caligo Boisduval, 1870 (a junior homonym of Caligo Hiibner, [1819}) ; (b) Paphia Fabricius, 1807 (a junior homonym of Paphia [Réding], 1798) ; (c) Jasia Swainson, 1832 (a junior objective synonym of Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816) ; (d) Iasius Westwood, [1850] (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Jasia Swainson, 1832) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— jason Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Papilio jason (a junior homonym of jason Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio jason) ; (5) to place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) CALIGININAE (correction of CALIGONINAE) Fruhstorfer, [1912] (type genus: Caligo Hiibner, [1819}) ; (b) cHARAXIDAE Doherty (W.), 1886 (type genus: Charazes Ochsenheimer, 1816) ; (6) to place the under-mentioned family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) CALIGONINAE Fruhstorfer, [1912] (type genus: Caligo Hiibner, [1819]) (an Invalid Original Spelling for cALIGININAE) ; (b) caLicINsE Orfila, 1949 (type genus: Caligo Hiibner, [1819)]) (an Invalid Correction of cALIGONINAE Fruhstorfer, [1912)) ; (c) CHARAXEIDI Wheeler, 1903 (type genus : Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816) (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling, at the tribe-name level, of CHARAXIDAE Doherty (W.), 1886) ; (d) CHARAXIDINAE Aurivillius, [1911] (type genus: Charazes Ochsenheimer, 1816) (an Invalid Correction, at the subfamily- name level, of CHARAXIDAE Doherty (W.), 1886). page 20. page 20. page 21. page 43. page 69. page 91. page 92. page 120. page 132. page 147. page 147. page 148. page 191. page 198. page 199. page 200. page 204. page 231. page 231. page 293. page 300. page 315. page 316. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331 CORRIGENDA Paragraph 14(2)(a), first line: insert “‘ selection by ”’ before ‘*‘ Riley ”’ Paragraph 14(2)(b), line 3, and (3)(b), first line : substitute ‘‘ Leech ”’ for ** Leach ” Paragraph 14(4)(c), first line : substitute ‘“‘ Leechia”’ for “‘ Leachia”’ Paragraph 9(5)(c), first line: substitute “5” for “4” Paragraph 8(2), first line: substitute “‘ vivipara” for “ viviparus”’ Paragraph 9(2)(b), first line and (3)(b), last line: substitute ‘‘ Maculi- pennia”’ for ‘* Maculipennis”” Comment (b), line 2: substitute “‘ Theridion”’ for ‘‘ Theridon”’ Paragraph 5, line 3: substitute “1797” for “‘ 1897 ”’ Paragraph 2, lines 7 and 9: substitute “‘ truncatula”’ for “‘ trunculata”’ Paragraph 15, last line but one: substitute “‘ Macrobrachium”’ for “* Machrobrachium ” Paragraph 16, Table heading, col. 1: substitute “Genus” for “‘ Species ”’ Paragraph 18, line 7: substitute ‘“‘ Cuvier’s ” for ‘“‘ Gurney’s ”’ Paragraph 3, line 10: substitute “‘ Indiana” for “ Indaina”’ Paragraph 18(4)(a), first line: substitute “‘ 1826” for “1926” Paragraph 18(6)(c), first line: substitute “ d’Orbigny, 1840, in de la Sagra (R.)”’ for “ de la Sagra (R.), 1840, in d’Orbigny ” Line 5: substitute “12” for “13” Line 2: delete “‘ Todd ”’ First line: substitute “‘ generic’ for “ specific ” Last line: insert ‘‘in’’ between ‘‘such”’ and “ works” Line 8 from end: substitute ‘“‘ symbol” for “‘ sumbol ”’ Line 9 from end: substitute ‘“‘ Owens’ for “* Woensi”’ substitute “‘ Edinburgh Office of the Geological Survey ”’ for “‘ Geo- Paragraph 7, last two lines: logical Survey of Scotland ” Column (2), last two lines but one: & Ager, D. V. Archer, A. F. Bailey, R. M. Baily, J. L., Jr. Baker, H. A. Bassler, R. 8. Begg, J. L. Bigelow, H. B. .. Blake, C. H. Bohlhe, J. E. Boettger, C. R. Bonnet, P. Bourgogne, J. Bradley, J. C. Brandegard, J. Breder, C. M. Bulman, O. M. B. Callan, E. McC. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333 INDEX TO AUTHORS OF APPLICATIONS AND OF COMMENTS ON APPLICATIONS Page 251-253, 254-256 92 . 303-308, 309-312 67-72 . 205 * alo .. 136 . 308 . 317 . 308 50-52 96-97 . 263 . 302 94 . 308 313-317 83 Page Chickering, A. M. “2 Sai tet nee Colbert, E. H. .. SS ca) ae Cox, L. R. ne “i a ed Dechaseaux, Mlle. C. 318-319 Doncaster, J. P. 248-250 Donovan, D. T. ais 27308 Duellmann, W. E. 99-100 Dusenbury, A.N., Jr... 194-199, 300-301, 302, 320 Eales, N. B. 240-244 Eisentraut, E. .. - ieee 7 Ellis, A. E. 38-43 Engel, H. ae a es | Feen, Mrs. W.S.S. vander .. 250 Follett, W.I. .. s .. 308 Forcart, L. 44-49 Forster, R. R. .. a -. 200 Frechkop, 8... ra .. 126 Frizzell, Harriet E. ots apes): 334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Page Gertsch, W. J. .. 2-1 200 Hull, J. E. 93 Gosline, W. A. .. . 308 Husson, A.M. .. 116-118, 125—126 Goodnight, C. J. 93 Gregory, J. T. - 102 Jaanusson, V. . 318 Grensted, L. W. 121-122, 237-239 Kaestner, A. . 200 Gyldenstolpe, Count N. 181-182 Kanazawa, R. H. .- 308 Kaston, B. J. 92 Haas, F. 245-247 aii Keen, Myra . 322 Hack : 94 i acacsitied Knight, K. L. > Ss Haltenorth, T. .. Se ~. 125 128-131, 160-166 Hand. ©. ue Se mei Kramp, P. L. .. =e .. 153 attaink Ontos aN i ee Hartmann, Gerd te s« AO Lachner, E. A. .. e .. 308 Hayman, R. W. ae .. 124 Lemche, H 3-8, 132-136, 228-229 Hemming, F. 13-21, 35-37, 73-74, 98, Locket, G. H. .. a oa | 107-127, 154-159, 167-168, 171-176, 203-205, 210-212, 230-232, 235-237, 257-263, ' : tts 280-286, 292-293, 299-302, Macfadyen, W. A. 321-322 ees eS Martinsson, A. .. as 1 as Herald, E. S. os sm aeUS Mattox, N. T. 206-209 Hering, E. M. 8, 21, 131, 264 Mayr, E. 177-181 Holthuis, L. B. 142-153, 294-296 Mead, G.W. .. ah <5 ee Horan, J. i ye senlbs Mertens, R. 9-12, 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335 Page Michener, C. D. 287-291 Mickel, C. E. 22-25 Miller, G. S., Jr. 122-123 Miller, R. RK. .. His Seas! Millidge, A. F. .. ae .. 94 Mislin, H. 124-125 Mohr, E. Xe ot Sah Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 76-79, 118, 126 Munroe, E. .. 183-185, 186-189 Nemenz, H. os hie ak ae Oliver, J. 74-75 Poulsen, C. 102-103 Pratt. De 2. ee 279 Raney, E.C. .. a .. 308 Rees, W. J. 26-28 Ricker, W. E. .. fe 7 o0S Riley, N. D. 13-21, 257-263, 286 Robins, C. R. -.. ai .. 308 Ross, E. S. 80-83 Roth, V. D. idk Ak a hae Page Russell, F.S. .. “3 .. 103 Ryberg, O. 123-124 Savage, J.M. .. - ee Savory, T.H. .. te es Schmidt, K. P. Me eo. LOL Schroeder, W. C. ne .. 308 Schultz, L. P. .. oe - >, 008 Scott, W.B. .. Be .. 308 Serafinski, W. .. si a Le Sheljuzhko, L. .. ais .. 320 Simpson, G. G. aA .. 124 Smith, Hobart M 189, 267-279 Stempffer, H. 280-286 Stone, A. 89-91, 128-131, 160-166 Stresemann, E. .. a eee: Stubblefield, C. J. 103, 139-141, 190 Suttkus, R. D. .. <4 «= 208. Sylvester-Bradley, P.C. 29-31, 191-193 Tambs-lyche, H. e Sars Oe Taylor, W.R. .. a .. 308 336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Thurman, Ernestine B. 220, 263 Tottenham, C. E. 84-88 Tripp, R. = zie sty, Vannucci, M._.. fe .. 199 Vaurie, C. 177-181 Vladykov, V. D. a .. 308 Watson, D. M.S. ae ~. LOL Page Watson, H. 53-66 Whittington, H.B. .. Sate Wiehle, H. st a .. 200 Woods, L. P. .. Ny .. 308 Wright, C. W. 213-215, 216-220, 221-224, 225-227 Wright, J. OF = cae Young,’ C.:C. >.>. ws aol Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 337 SUBJECT INDEX Page Acera Lamarck, 1812 (an Invalid Emendation of Akera Miiller (O.F.), 1776), proposed addition of, to the CAH Index of ene and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology no 7 Acera Rafinesque, 1815 (an Invalid Emendation of Akera Miller (O.F.), 1776), proposed addition of, to the pa Index ot i and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ay 7 Acera Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1846 (an Invalid Emendation of Akera Miiller (O.F.), 1776), proposed addition of, to the Macias Index 4f Peiepted and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology a : a Acera Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1848 (an Invalid Emendation of Akera Miiller (O.F.), 1776), proposed addition of, to the sane Index si sisi and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology a : i! Aceras Locard, 1886 (an Invalid Emendation of Akera Miller (O.F.), 1776), proposed addition of, to the iat fi Index of pints and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology aes 7 ACERIDAE Odhner, 1907 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for AKERIDAE Pilsbry, 1893), proposed addition of, to the en Index as ieee and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology 400 8 acraea Westwood, [1851], as published in the combination Liptena acraea (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), de chigien addition of, to the sae a List of Specific Names in Zoology i ‘ 286 adspersus Tilesius, 1818, as published in the combination Penaeus adspersus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy Rate “ee ave nals nee be 294-296 proposed addition of, to the seins Index a ees eae and Invalid ieee Names in Zoology ae 296 adspersus Rathke, 1837, Palaemon (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed designation of, under the ee Sahni to be the type species of Palaemon Weber, 1795 ee F 4 ... 142-151, 294-296 advertisement of the above proposal soe ahs sr oc 137, 266 proposed addition of, to the Oficial List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 152 Agama Daudin, [1802] (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in amas 8 with Lacerta pie Linnaeus, 1758, as type species =e 277 gender of name ... de ese oo eve one owe oe deel 277 338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page agama Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lacerta agama (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata), preety addition of, to the ee List of Specific Names in Zoology 4 278 AGAMIDAE (correction of AGAMOIDEA) Fitzinger, 1826 (Class Reptilia), a name having precedence under a “ First Reviser’’ selection made by Smith (H.M.) (1957) over the names PNEUSTOIDEA and DRACONOIDEA (both of Fitzinger, 1826), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with Agama Daudin, [1802], as type genus 278-279 AGAMOIDEA Fitzinger, 1826 (an Invalid Original Spelling for acammDAgr), proposed addition of, to the ek ata Index of mien and Invalid iit Group Names in Zoology aes 279 Akera Miller (O.F.), 1776 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in wees with Akera bullata Miller By F. 2 1776, as type species... 3-7 gender of name ... sot oh se ne Bae Eo oh BS ti akera Gmelin, [1791], as published in the combination Bulla akera (a junior objective synonym of bullata Miiller (O.F.), 1776, as published in the combination Akera bullata), proposed addition of, to the ee Index Le Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ae 7 AKERATIDAE Pilsbry, 1896 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for AKERIDAE Pilsbry, 1893), proposed addition of, to the diana Index of ene and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology er 8 AKERIDAE Pilsbry, 1893 (Class Gastropoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family- aN ce Names in ea with Akera Miiller aah F. si 1776, as type genus oak 8 americanum Bate, 1868, as published in the combination Macrobrachium americanum (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... ane A Se “Eis at be Anchisauripus Lull, 1904 (Class Reptilia : Theropoda [Ichnites)), support for the 4852 ge addition of, to the a pee List Ag Generic Names in Zoology ... ig : : ... 31, 101-102 Anodon Oken, 1815 (an Invalid Emendation of Anodonta Lamarck, 1799), proposed addition of, to the gpueaes Index of sails and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology aw 247 Anodonta Lamarck, 1799 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed confirmation of position of, on the Giieint List sii Generic Names in seins cs as so a Bere in Opinion 94... ¥a : ae re ; 245-247 advertisement of the above proposal a eae sore eam asseureeees Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339 Page Anodonte Fischer von Waldheim, 1823 (an Invalid Emendation of Anodonta Lamarck, 1799), proposed addition of, to the ae Index af. acs and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 247 Anodontes Cuvier, 1817 (an Invalid Emendation of Anodonta Lamarck, 1799), proposed addition of, to the ee Index of ane and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 247 anonyma Lewis, 1872, as published in the combination Limenitis anonyma (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of eed but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ies “a a : % ae 257-262 advertisement of the above proposal ... 234 proposed addition of, to the peupehan Index ce js east and Inwalid oe Names in Zoology 262 Anopheles Meigen, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and proposed eee of Culex sauces siabes hig 1818, to be the mee species of . 89-91 advertisement of the above proposal 34 support for the above proposal 220 gender of name ... 91 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 91 ANOPHELINA Theobald, 1901 (an Invalid Original Spelling for ANOPHELINAE), proposed addition of, to the ccna Index 4 sible and Invalid Pe sirad Group Names in Zoology “91 ANOPHELINAE (correction -of ANOPHELINA) Theobald, 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family- oer Names in Zoology, with Anopheles Meigen, 1818, as type genus 91 Apterembia Ross, 1957 (Class Insecta, Order Embioptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ee with eae cercocyrta Krauss, 1911, as type species 82 Argyreiosus Lacépéde, 1803 (Class Pisces), proposed issue under the Plenary Powers of a direction giving precedence to Selene Lacépéde, 1803, a name published in the same work and on the same date, over ... S 303-308 Aurelia as from Lamarck, 1816 (Class EREP ED) Draper validation of, under the Plenary Powers . 26-28 advertisement of the above proposal 2 support for the above proposal Spe Ss: anc soe 103, 153, 199 gender of name ... ae an Ae AoE are ane ae 28 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ey eee with Medusa aurita Linnaeus, 1758, as type species 28 340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AURELIDAE Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1862 (an Invalid Original Spelling for AURELIIDAE), proposed addition of, to the ied Index - cose and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology AURELIIDAE (correction of AURELIDAE) Agassiz (J.L.R.), 1862 (Class Scyphozoa), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family- ai Names in Zoology, with Aurelia Lamarck, 1816, as type genus Aurellia Péron & Lesueur, [1810] (Class Scyphozoa), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of fey but not for those of the Law of Homonymy - support for the above proposal proposed addition of, to the one Index oF or and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : aurita Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Medusa aurita (Class Scyphozoa), a addition of, to the ae List As mete ie Names in Zoology bengalensis Daudin, [1802], as published in the combination T'wupinambis bengalensis (Class Reptilia), a name having precedence under a “ First Reviser ” selection by Duméril & Bibron (1836) over cepedianus Daudin, [1802], as published in the combination Tupinambis cepedianus, proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 2 Le Bithys Hiibner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of pei but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : advertisement of the above proposal Page 28 28 . 26-28 103 28 28 9-12 . 13-20 2 support for the above proposal aC ae ae “ne Sse 131, 263 proposed addition of, to the eee Index of. fii and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology boiga Lacépéde, 1789, as published in the combination Coluber boiga (Class Reptilia), comments on the proposed Ruling that pictus Gmelin, [1789], as published in the combination Coluber pyr should be ee Sees 3 over vhs Aa Boissonneaua Reichenbach, [March 1854] (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ae with Trochilus flavescens Loddiges, 1832, as type species.. : gender of name ... Boissonneauana Giebel, 1877 (an Invalid Emendation of Boissonneaua Reichenbach, [March 1854]), proposed addition of, to the ise Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 7 20 32 168 168 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341 Page Boissonneauxia Simon, 1897 (an Invalid Emendation of Boissonneaua Reichenbach, [March 1854}), proposed addition of, to the en Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ... Ae 168 bostoniensis Lesueur, 1817, as published in the combination Muraena bostoniensis (Class Pisces), proposed issue under the Plenary Powers of a direction giving precedence to rostrata Lesueur, 1817, as published in the combination Muraena rostrata, a name published in the same work and on the same date, over oa : ne hs ae ee Seu 303-308 Boys (W.) and Walker (G.), [1784], Testacea minuta rariora, proposed addition of title of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature as a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature.. 4 - 228-229 support for the above proposal wae tse sie a “fe --. 320 Bradoria Matthew, 1899 (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda), proposed addi- tion of, to the Official List of Generic Names in twigs with Bradoria scrutator Matthew, 1899, as type species ia 193 gender of name ... = oor ne ae eels Bcc “be Saou: BRADORUDAE Matthew, 1902 (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in sei di with Bradoria Matthew, 1899, as type genus aes 193 brevipalpis Theobald, November 1901, as published in the combination Toxorhynchites brevipalpis (Class Insecta, Order debi aie ps addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology . : 130 bryani Whitehouse, 1926, Labeceras (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Labeceras Spath, 1925 oe nee a eee Sas Soe 213-214 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 215 bucklandii Milne Edwards (H.), 1840, as published in the combination Peltura (emend. of Peltoura) bucklandii (Class Trilobita), support for the proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ... 72 bullata Miller (O.F.), 1776, as published in the combination Akera bullata (Class Gastropoda), proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers . 3-6 advertisement of the above proposal “te Sor aoe ae nae 2 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology... 7 bulloides d’Orbigny, 1826, as published in the combination Globigerina i bulloides (Class Rhizopoda), shir hati addition of, to the Ps List il Specific Names in Zoology aE 198 342 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Bythis Hubner, [1827-1831] (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Bithys Hubner, 1818), proposed addition of, to the igen Index Se ks and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology CALIGINAE Orfila, 1949 (an Invalid Correction of cALIGONINAE Fruhstorfer, [1912]), proposed addition of, to the Oe cic Index of ey and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology = aaa CALIGININAE (correction of CALIGONINAE) Fruhstorfer, [1912] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology, with Caligo Hiibner, [1819], as type genus Caligo Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in abe with phair eurtlochus Page 21 330 330 Cramer, [1775], as type species yy ste 327-330 gender of name ... Caligo Boisduval, 1870 (a junior homonym of Caligo Hiibner, [1819]), pro- posed addition of, to the oene Index site Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology CALIGONINAE Fruhstorfer, [1912] (an Invalid Original Spelling for ca1i- GININAE), proposed addition of, to the ecg Index a cr bape and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology 2 Calycoceras Hyatt, 1900 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and proposed designation of Ammonites navicularis Mantell, 1822, to be 329 330 330 the type species of Hey ; = Ras wae Le, 216-218 advertisement of the above proposal ... gender of name ... proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology camilla Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the combination Papilio camilla (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), aes 2 addition of, to the We ns = List of Specific Names in Zoology * : camilla [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, as published in the combination Papilio camilla (a junior homonym of camilla Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the cmbination Papilio camilla), proposed addition of, to the capes Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology e canaliculata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Bulla canali- culata (Class Gastropoda), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of sels td but not for those of the Law of Homonymy + : ze ae x: proposed addition of, to the —* Index 4 sciyiek and Invalid een Names in Zoology : 202 218 218 262 263 EE Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343 Page Candona Baird, [1846] (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda), support for the proposed validation of ... soe te ms sor 5 ‘og -- 104 cantianus Spath, 1926, as published in the combination Mantelliceras cantianus (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology coe he =e ccna ei CENTRIDINI (correction of CENTRINI) Cockerell (T.D.A.) & Cockerell (W.P.), 1901 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Growp Names in Zoology, with Centris Fabricius, 1804, as type genus oe roe oe icp Fok Bae Ba . 291 CENTRINI Cockerell (T.D.A.) & Cockerell (W.P.), 1901 (an Invalid Original Spelling for CENTRIDINI), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology = aioe Seon ooL Centris Fabricius, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), proposed setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and proposed designation of Apis haemorrhoidalis Fabricius, 1775, to be the type species of ... Ben at Se toc ave aE 287-290 advertisement of the above proposal 266 gender of name ... tye ee ae ae oe sce eae 290 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 290 Cephalomutilla André (1908) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), proposed setting aside, under the Plenary Powers, of all previous type selections for, and proposed designation of Ephuta (Traumatomutilla) graviceps André, 1903, to be the type species of Sch 22-24 advertisement of the above proposal 2 gender of name .. ee aah pais “fe was : ee 25 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 25 cercocyrta Krauss, 1911, as published in the combination Dictyoploca cerco- cyrta (Class Insecta, Order Embioptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology Ae ste aoe 7 See 82 CERVULINAE Sclater, 1870 (Class Mammalia), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy =. ay sist oF ane 79 Proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology eat & re a aed ane ave 79 CHARAXEIDI Wheeler, 1903 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling, at the tribe- name level, of CHARAXIDAR Doherty (W.), 1886), Proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ... Se Bee =e 3 ase ue ae Be Soci mec bi! 344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Chraaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in oe Yy, with ig ae jasius Linnaeus, 1767, as type species.. st “2 327-329 gender of name ... ae es “ae eee cos as ise von 1820 CHARAXIDAE Doherty (W.), 1886 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), pro- posed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in desig) with Charaxes Ochsenheimer, 1816, as type genus ... 330 CHARAXIDINAE Aurivillius, [1911] (an Invalid Correction, at the subfamily- name level, of CHARAXIDAE Doherty (W.), 1886), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology... 330 CHRYSOPHANIDI Scudder (S.H.), (1889) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), proposed ruling that possesses no status under either the Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy as based on a misidentified type genus ae 21 proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Re and Invalid Gaiahiat Group Names in Zoology... 21 Chrysophanus Hiibner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy 23. i ... 13-20 advertisement of the above proposal ... Se co oa “log a 2 support for the above proposal vee = Ai, Be one 131, 263 proposed addition of, to the hn i Index of ps ips and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology sae 20 claviger Meigen, 1818, Culex (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed designation of, under the Plenary sarc to be the a a a of Anopheles Meigen, 1818 =P ; ; . 89-91 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology <= 91 colonorum Daudin, [1802], as published in the combination Agama colonorum (a junior objective synonym of agama Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Lacerta agama), proposed addition of, to the coi Index les Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ils , 278 Commission, International, on Zoological Nomenclature : Deaths reported : Esaki, Teiso (Commissioner)... ee ee os Ke 546 323-324 Richter, Rudolf (former Commissioner) ... “ee see we 139-141 communis Anslijn, 1826, as published in the combination Palaemon communis (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of se ci ae! but not for those of the Law of Homonymy nea : : ae sc ae 294-296 proposed addition of, to the poate Index of eae and Invalid Siete Names in Zoology ae 296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345 Page communis Lapworth (C.), 1876, as published in the combination M. onograptus convolutus var. (Class Graptolithina), Proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology “es aoe pe bas ide es ty Conchoecia Dana, 1849 (Class Crustacea, Order Ostracoda), support for the proposed validation of ... oF ne a AP dag Nee s+ 104 contectum Millet, 1813, Cyclostoma (Class Gastropoda), proposed interpretation of, by reference to lectotype selected by Forcart (L.) (1957)... . 44-48 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 48 Creophilus Samouelle, 1819 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Staphylinus maxillosus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species Se me oF mee 87 gender of name ... 87 cristata Meigen, 1826, as published in the combination Dexia cristata (Class Crustacea, Order Conchostraca), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ave a ase sa ats «ss, * 209 Cupido Schrank, 1801 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), support for the proposed designation of type species for ea Be! eee Eras ae 8 Cuvier (G.L.C.F.D.) & Valenciennes (A.), Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, proposed attribution to Cuvier of relevant parts of, and proposed deter- mination of date of publication of those parts viet ace 309-312 proposed addition of title of, to the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature are ide roe LP westh yne LO CYziIcIDAE Stebbing, 1910 (Class Crustacea, Order Conchostraca), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with Cyzicus Audouin, 1837, as type genus ah xe Fc ay sete 4209 Cyzicus Audouin, 1837 (Class Crustacea, Order Conchostraca), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Limnadia tetracera Krynicki, 1830, as type species be aa =e 206-209 gender of name ... 209 dahalacensis Riippell, 1837, as published in the combination Estheria dahalensis (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology hs =f oe i: eee e209 damesi Jimbo, 1894, as published in the combination Desmoceras damesi (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology em hse aa me oon eae 346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Damesites Matsumoto, 1942 (Class Cephalopoda, Order SPR TREN: pro- posed validation of, under the Plenary Powers aids - 225-227 advertisement of the above proposal 202 gender of name ... 227 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in ee with Desmoceras damesi Jimbo, 1894, as type species ... 227 Declarations containing interpretations of provisions in the Régles, proposed adoption of, see Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique. diabolica Gerstaecker, 1874, as published in the combination Mutilla diabolica (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), BegEres addition of, to the = Cham List of Specific Names in Zoology ‘ 25 Dictyoploca Krauss [March] 1911 (Class Insecta, Order Embioptera), pro- posed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy .. 80-81 support for the above proposal 83 proposed addition of, to the ie a Index 2 bie and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 82 Dictyoploca Jordan, [October] 1911 (Class Insecta, Order SRNR proposed validation of, under the Plenary Powers . . 80-81 advertisement of the above proposal ... 34 gender of name ... 81 support for the above proposal... 83 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 81 dimidiata Olivier, 1789, as published in the combination Apis dimidiata (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the ae eae both of the Law of snide: and of the Law of Homonymy .... : 450 287-290 proposed addition of, to the opti 1 Index of | Reet and Invalid ies Names in Zoology 291 dimidiata Gmelin (J.F.), [1790], as published in the combination Apis dimi- diata (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), proposed suppression of,under the Plenary Powers, for the pore? both of the Law of isa) and of the Law of Homonymy Bd . Bate 287-290 proposed addition of, to the eee Index a Ieee and Invalid a Speevic Names in Zoology 291 dimidiata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Apis dimidiata (Class Insecta, Order its camiaeatiee acon validation of, under the Plenary Powers ... Ae: 5 53 eas ve oe ae 285-290 advertisement of the above proposal ... 266 proposed addition of, to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 291 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature discolor (Natterer MS) Kuhl, 1817, as published in the combination Vespertilio discolor (a junior objective synonym of murinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespertilio murinus), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology donovani Gray (J.E.), 1847, as published in the combination Hucampe donovani (a junior objective synonym of bullata Miiller (O.F.), 1776, as published in the combination Akera bullata), proposed addition of, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology dracaena Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the combination Lacerta dracaena (Class Reptilia), proposed suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of “ienacgee but not for those of the Law of Homonymy re : : : proposed addition of, to the ey Index of ejet and Invalid ae c Names in Zoology Draconculus Penel, 1904 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Dracunculus Reichard, 1759), proposed addition of, to the a Index of aber and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... DRACUNCULINAE Stiles (C.W.), 1907 (Class Nematoda), proposed addition of, to the Official List of Family-Group Names in phere with Dracunculus Reichard, 1759, as type genus - Dracunculus Reichard, 1759 (Class Nematoda), proposed validation of, under the Plenary ee with Gordius medinensis Linnaeus, 1758, as t 347 Page 114 157 species... ae es So “se Aa ... 154-156, 158-159 advertisement of the above proposal gender of name ... proposed addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Dracunculus Wiegmann, 1834 (a junior homonym of Dracunculus Reichard, 1759), proposed addition of, to the dua Index eg riba and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology vt Dracunculus Kroyer, [1838-1840] (a junior homonym of Dracunculus Reichard, 1759), proposed addition of, to the ee Index 6 beast and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology... Dracuncuus Moniez, 1896 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for Dracunculus Reichard, 1759), proposed addition of, to the AY seine Index ra eta and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : elegans Rathke, 1837, as published in the combination Palaemon elegans (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), Ss addition of, to the ee List of Specific Names in Zoology : : 138 156 156 157 157 348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Encrinurus Emmrich, 1844 (Class Trilobita), support for the proposed desig- nation of Entomostracites ~ peg? ping tah ai 1821, to be the type species of aS : 102-103, 136 Enoplognatha Pavesi (P.), 1880 (Class Arachnida), comments on the proposed addition of, to the Official Lits of Generic Names in Zoology... 92-95, 96-98, 200 erythropterus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Staphylinus erytropterus (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), proposed validation, under the Plenary Powers, of emendation to, of erytropterus and proposed designation of, under those asad to be the type amin of bine Linnaeus, 1758 ... tee ‘