ee Bre ee a a en Pn ee rt Oe Ae =e ert ‘ Ra Tecetetee Siee at ‘ i cri nee ‘ ue < ets Siesct pene ores ae ety slots tti-t= Ses eatery trast i z ; = -* rietres pats + ereres rs piseety nietate SEOs Sr eresetrtri store ty SINISE Sas. te stiee ‘ SSR EES ie thee abets sate pete Herett ferti Sescetenotearss tease Wsieie eth t H seine Sti Soeesesss et gessececstesesest=: waa eeaete Spates eepeeeritea sc aes a tSrtes : 235 Scereeerye SS See ee eh eee ett eto tt as 2 Bose Br Oy oe So aes Seer be Seas eeee cose elecasecee Pr esos peest cee erercaseststsrstecscttesscestecteeeregetoas SIsisacerecasecseeceese sete asasestcesere +4 pestecesetesictt sertegtrecstesy sSesecussetseseseses Hy £43 rHeereres mewereped oes 4) mens. Y 4 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 22 ea Le MS hai 8D ~ 4% sa Cay f 7 GIS mg) oF wee ges ~ 53 j a s a. mat? 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, 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1 1965 (All rights reserved) a _ 101001008 q - aut wh | es ee TABLE OF CONTENTS Appointment of a Secretary to the Commission ... Acting Secretary’s Note and the By-Laws of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature ... Opinion 717. Arizona elegans Kennicott, 1859 (Reptilia): Validated under the plenary powers au fas iss aoe ae Opinion 718. Eucypris Vavra, 1891 (Crustacea, oy ee esau of a type-species under the plenary powers : a: Opinion 719. Aelia rostrata Boheman, 1852 (Insecta, Hemiptera): Validated under the plenary powers es ner : Opinion 720. Tetrastichus Walker, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Suppressed under the plenary powers ; be aie tie Opinion 721. Dicellomus Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda): ote of a type-species under the plenary powers a Opinion 722. Orbiculoidea d’Orbigny, 1847 aaa pera of a type-species under the plenary powers fe Opinion 723. Repeal of the Ruling given in Opinion 47 together with the stabilisation of the generic names Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, Carcharodon Smith, 1838, and es ca 1838, in their accustomed sense (Pisces) : < a Te Opinion 724. Endothyra bowmani Phillips, [1846] (Foraminifera): Validated under the plenary powers = cae aa Hi Opinion 725. SPONDYLIASPIDINAE Schwarz, 1898 (Insecta, Hemiptera): Stabilised in its accustomed usage Opinion 726. Jovellania Bayle, 1879 0 ee Validated under the plenary powers Opinion 727. Three specific names of Spanish Palaeozoic Crinoidea: Suppressed under the plenary powers Opinion 728. Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860 a oer on the interpretation of the specific name : Ill 19 22 24 26 28 30 32 37 43 45 47 IV Pelta Quatrefages, 1844, or Runcina Forbes, 1851 (Gastropoda): Two competing names for a place on the Official List. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske aeSeRa, Universitetsparken 15, Copenhagen, Denmark) Cadlina Bergh, 1878 (Gastropoda): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15, Copenhagen, Denmark) Tipula nubeculosa Meigen, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers as a misidentified specificname. By A. M. Hemmingsen (Stredam Biologiske Laboratorium, Hillerod, Danmark) Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Danmark) oe = - Faviphyllum rugosum Hall, 1852 (Anthozoa, Rugosa): Proposed suppres- sion under the plenary powers of generic and specific names. By W. J. Sando (U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Ornipholidotos Bethune Baker, 1914 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Request for a Ruling under the plenary powers as to its type-species. By H. Stempffer (4, rue St. Antoine, Paris, 4me, France) oe He Synaptiphilus Canu & Cuénot, 1892 (Crustacea, Copepoda): Proposed preservation under the plenary powers. By Lucien Laubier & Jan H. Stock (Laboratoire Arago, Banyuls-sur-Mer, France, and Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Eretmia Gosse, 1886 (?Rotatoria): Proposed suppression of this generic name under the plenary powers. By G. E. Hutchinson (Department of Biology, Yale University, Connecticut, U.S.A.) Dromaius Vieillot, 1816 (Aves): Proposed addition to the Official List. By D. L. Serventy (C.S.I.R.O., Nedlands, Western Australia), H. T. Condon (South Australian Museum, Adelaide, South Australia) and Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative ea Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) ‘ Net : - mae Ypthima Hiibner, 1818 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) 2 ay re a Napaea Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) $95 ee, aS A Page 49 51 33 55 Sik 58 60 63 66 67 Taspis Kaye, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type- species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) Pithecops Horsfield, [1828] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) if é a sae vias Arisbe Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) = cas : Phrissura Butler, 1870 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) aad me ; Adopaeoides Godman, [1900] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed desig- nation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) ane ab if Artines Godman, [1901] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) ane to oo ee Gegenes Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) he ae < “n Halpe Moore, 1878 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) ‘ Sx , Papias Godman, [1900] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) ye tie ae Phanis Godman, [1900], and Phanes Godman, [1901] (Insecta, Lepi- doptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) age Telicota Moore, [1881] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Francis Hemming (deceased) nie

P - : d BAGS, USSR) | cP a. New 3, r + $ : fi { “ oy iby 07 : Q oF Not Liset, BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE eee ee Volume 22, Part 2 (pp. 81-142) 18th May, 1965 Secretary’s Note The number of new applications and related comments being received by the Secretariat has decreased recently. In order to maintain the annual income of the Trust it may be necessary to reduce the number of pages in each of the six parts of each volume of the Bulletin without changing the price. If, of course, the decrease of matter for publication is only temporary, a return will be made to the present 80 pages. Zoologists who may have applications in mind are requested to submit them to the Secretariat without delay. G. O. EVANS Honorary Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin:— (1) Designation of a type-species for Limacia Miiller, 1781 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1665. (2) Designation of a type-species for Leuctra Stephens, 1835 (Insecta, Plecoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1671. (3) Designation of a type-species for Nupedia Karl, 1930 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 1691. (4) Designation ofa type-species for Heteroptrypa Nicholson, 1879 (Bryozoa, Trepostomata). Z.N.(S.) 1693. (5) Designation of a type-species for Peronopora Nicholson, 1881 (Bryoza, Trepostomata). Z.N.(S.) 1693. (6) Designation of a type-species for Baetis [Leach, 1815] (Insecta, Epheme- roptera). Z.N.(S.) 1620. (7) Suppression of the specific name Ephemera bioculata Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Ephemeroptera). Z.N.(S.) 1620. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary, London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on May 1965. Zoological Nomenclature 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 729 MYMAR CURTIS, 1829 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Mymar Curtis, 1829, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Mymar pulchellum Curtis, 1832, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Mymar Curtis, 1829 (gender : neuter), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Mymar pulchellum Curtis, 1832 (Name No. 1667); (b) Mymarilla Westwood, 1879 (gender : neuter), type-species, by original designation, Mymar wollastonii Westwood, 1879 (Name No. 1668); (c) Anaphes Haliday, 1833 (gender : neuter), type-species, by original designation, Ichneumon punctum Shaw, 1798 (Name No. 1669). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) pulchellum Curtis, 1832, as published in the binomen Mymar pulchellum (type-species of Mymar Curtis, 1829) (Name No. 2068); (b) wollastonii Westwood, 1879, as published in the binomen Mymar wollastonii (type-species of Mymarilla Westwood, 1879) (Name No. 2069) ; (c) punctum Shaw, 1798, as published in the binomen Ichneumon punctum (type-species of Anaphes Haliday, 1833) (Name No. 2070). (4) The generic name Oglobliniella Soyka, 1946 (a junior objective synonym of Mymar Curtis, 1829) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1757. (5) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) MYMARIDAE Haliday in Westwood, 1839 (type-genus Mymar Curtis, 1829) (Name No. 389); (b) ANAPHINI Ashmead, 1904 (type-genus Anaphes Haliday, 1833) (Name No. 390). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 479) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission in July 1962 by Professor Richard L. Doutt and Dr. David P. Annecke. The application was sent to the printer on 27 July 1962 and was published on 11 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 134-136. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b: Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. The Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 proposals were supported by Dr. O. Bakkendorf, Dr. B. D. Burks, Dr. A. A. Ogloblin, Dr. B. R. Subba Rao and Professor E. I. Schlinger. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 October 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)17 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 136. At the close of the pres- cribed voting period on 5 January 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-six (26), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Brinck, Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, do Amaral, Simpson, Boschma, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Bonnet, Evans, Sabrosky, Ride, Binder, Uchida, Miller, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado, Borchsenius, Stoll, Kraus. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Anaphes Haliday, 1833, Ent. Mag. 1 : 346 ANAPHINI Ashmead, 1904, Mem. Carneg. Mus. 1 (4) : 363 Mymar Curtis, 1829, Guide Arrang. Brit. Ins. : 112 MYMARIDAE Haliday in Westwood, 1839, Introd. mod. Classif. Brit. Ins. 2 : 173 Mymarilla Westwood, 1879, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. (2) 1 : 583-593 Oglobliniella Soyka, 1946, Zbl. Gesamtgeb. Ent. 1 : 181 pulchellum, Mymar, Curtis, 1832, Brit. Ent. 9 : pl. 411 punctum, Ichneumon, Shaw, 1798, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 4 : 189 wollastonii, Mymar; Westwood, 1879, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. (2) 1: 585 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper 64(17) were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 729. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Honorary Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 February 1965 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 730 YERBUA FORSTER, 1778 (MAMMALIA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Yerbua Forster, 1778, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Jaculus Erxleben, 1777 (gender : masculine), type- species, by tautonymy, Mus jaculus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1670. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) jaculus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Mus jaculus (type- species of Jaculus Erxleben, 1777) (Name No. 2071); (b) sibirica Forster, 1778, as published in the binomen Yerbua sibirica (Name No. 2072); (c) capensis Forster, 1778, as published in the binomen Yerbua capensis (Name No. 2073). (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Yerbua Forster, 1778 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 1758); (b) Jerboa Zimmermann, 1777 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes by Opinion 257) (Name No. 1759). (5) The specific name kangaru Forster, 1778, as published in the binomen Yerbua kangaru (a junior objective synonym of canguru, Mus, Miiller, 1776) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 818. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 653) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott in February 1952. An application was prepared and was sent to the printer on 9 March 1962 and published on 11 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 137-138. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two specialist serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 October 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)18 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 137-138. At the close of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 prescribed voting period on 5 January 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-six (26), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Jaczewski, Vokes, Brinck, Riley, Obruchev, do Amaral, Simpson, Boschma, Tortonese, Bonnet, Evans, Sabrosky, Ride, Binder, Uchida, Miller, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado, Borchsenius, Stoll, Kraus. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: capensis, Yerbua, Forster, 1778, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 39 : 111 Jaculus Erxleben, 1777, Syst. Régn. Anim.: 404 jaculus, Mus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 63 Jerboa Zimmermann, 1777, Spec. Zool. Geogr.: 522 kangaru, Yerbua, Forster, 1778, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 39 : 111 sibirica, Yerbua, Forster, 1778, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Hand. 39 : 111 Yerbua Forster, 1778, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 39 : 111 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)18 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 730. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Honorary Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 12 February 1965 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 731 PSYLLA GEOFFROY, 1762 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS WITH SUPPRESSION OF CHERMES LINNAEUS, 1758 RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the generic name Psylla Geoffroy, 1762, is hereby validated and the nominal species Chermes alni Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus; (b) the generic name Chermes Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Psylla Geoffroy, 1762 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Chermes alni Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1671); (b) Adelges Vallot, 1836 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Adelges laricis Vallot, 1836 (Name No. 1672). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) alni Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chermes alni (type- species of Psylla Geoffroy, 1762) (Name No. 2074); (b) Jaricis Vallot, 1836, as published in the binomen Adelges laricis (type- species of Adelges Vallot, 1836) (Name No. 2075). (4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) PSYLLIDAE Latreille, 1807 (type-genus Psylla Geoffroy, 1762) (Name No. 391); (b) ADELGINAE Annand, 1928 (type-genus Adelges Vallot, 1836) (Name No. 392). (5) The generic name Chermes Linnaeus, 1758 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1760. (6) The family-group name CHERMIDES Fallén, 1814 (type-genus Chermes Linnaeus, 1758) (invalid because the name of its type-genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 415. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1515) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. V. F. Eastop in December 1961. Dr. Eastop’s application was sent to the printer on 31 January 1962 and was published on 11 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 139-144. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. oa . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. Dr. Eastop’s proposals were supported by Dr. Leonard D. Tuthill, Dr. A. W. Steffan, Dr. Frej Ossiannilsson (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 9-10), Prof. Dr. H. Wurmbach, Dr. G. Lampel, Dr. Fr. Schremmer, Dr. R. E. Balch, Dr. G. R. Underwood & Dr. I. W. Varty (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 191-192), Dr. K. M. Moore and Dr. J. M. Franz. An objection by Dr. W. R. Richards was pub- lished in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 8-9. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 October 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)19 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 143-144. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 5 January 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-five (25), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Brinck, Jaczewski, Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, Simpson, Boschma, Tortonese, Bonnet, Evans, Sabrosky, Ride, Binder, Uchida, Miller, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado, Borchsenius, Stoll, Kraus. Negative votes—one (1): do Amaral. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Adelges Vallot, 1836, C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris 3 : 72 ADELGINAE Annand, 1928, Stan. Univ. Publn. Biol. Sci. 6 : 31 alni, Chermes, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 454 Chermes Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 453 CHERMIDES Fallén, 1814, Spec. nov. Hemipt. Disp. Meth.: 22 laricis, Adelges, Vallot, 1836, C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris 3 : 72 Psylla Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Paris: 482 PSYLLIDAE Latreille, 1807, Gen. Crust. Ins. 3 : 168 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)19 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 731. G. OWEN EVANS W. E.-CHINA Honorary Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 12 February 1965 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 732 BOMOLOCHUS VON NORDMANN, 1832 (CRUSTACEA, COPEPODA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Bomolochus Von Nordmann, 1832, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Bomolochus soleae Claus, 1864, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Bomolochus Von Nordmann, 1832 (gender : mascu- line), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Bomolochus soleae Claus, 1864, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1673. (3) The specific name soleae Claus, 1864, as published in the binomen Bomolochus soleae (type-species of Bomolochus Von Nordmann, 1832) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2076. (4) The generic name Bomolchus Von Nordmann, 1832 (an incorrect original spelling for Bomolochus Von Nordmann, 1832) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1761. (5) The family-group name BOMOLOCHIDAE Claus, 1875 (type-genus Bomolo- chus Von Nordmann, 1832) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 393. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1518) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in January 1962 by Dr. W. Vervoort. Dr. Vervoort’s application was sent to the printer on 9 March 1962 and was published on 11 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 148-149. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to one specialist serial. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 October 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)21 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20: 149. At the close of the pres- cribed voting period on 5 January 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Mayr, Brinck, Jaczewski, Riley, Obruchev, do Amaral, Boschma, Tortonese, Bonnet, Evans, Sabrosky, Ride, Binder, Uchida, Miller, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado, Borchsenius, Stoll, Kraus. Negative votes—two (2): Lemche, Simpson. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. Prof. H. E. Vokes declined to vote. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their Voting Papers: Dr. Henning Lemche (16.x.64): The application of the plenary powers in this case should not serve taxonomic ideas of a single author against the views of the first reviser (Wilson, 1911). When the genus is to be split up anyway, no confusion would seem to arise if, instead, the applicant had proposed to stabilise Wilson’s action. Dr. H. E. Vokes (10.xi.64): I feel that I need more information before being able to vote intelligently on this application. Specifically, even though Wilson’s designation in 1911 of B. bellones is technically invalid, to what extent has it been followed by subsequent authors, and how much confusion would result in selecting another—and admittedly different form—as the type? Further, since Dr. Vervoort states that it will be necessary in any case to recognize new genera (not subgenera), what difficulty would result from the fact that the type- genus was somewhat aberrant, as would result if the Wilson designation was validated ? Prof. G. G. Simpson (4.xii.64): On evidence submitted, Bomolochus was based on material almost certainly not conspecific or congeneric with the type now proposed for the genus. In spite of usage, which in general is preferable to any rule, such action is likely to lead to instability in the long run, and designa- tion of a regularly valid name for the genus including soleae Claus, 1864, is preferable. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: BOMOLOCHIDAE Claus, 1875, Z. wiss. Zool. 25 : 340 Bomolochus Von Nordmann, 1832, Mikrographische Beitr. Naturgesch. Wirbell. Tiere 2 : 135 soleae, Bomolochus, Claus, 1864, Z. wiss. Zool. 14: 374, pl. 35, figs. 16-20, pl. 36, fig. 28 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)21 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 732. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Honorary Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 February 1965 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 733 CANDACIA DANA, 1846 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): VALIDATION AND DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Candacia Dana, 1846, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Candace pachydactyla Dana, 1849, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus; (b) the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) the generic name Jfionyx Kregyer, 1846 (7); (ii) the specific name typicus Kroyer, 1846(?), as published in the binomen /fionyx typicus. (2) The generic name Candacia Dana, 1846 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Candace pachydactyla Dana, 1849, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1674. (3) The specific name pachydactyla Dana, 1849, as published in the binomen Candace pachydactyla (type-species of Candacia Dana, 1846) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2077. (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Candace Dana, 1849 (an incorrect spelling for Candacia Dana, 1846) (Name No. 1762); (b) Ifionyx Kroyer, 1846 (?) (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) (Name No. 1763). (5) The specific name typicus Kroyer, 1846 (?), as published in the binomen Ifionyx typicus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) is hereby piaced on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 819. (6) The family-group name CANDACIIDAE (correction of CANDACIDAE) Giesbrecht, 1892 (type-genus Candacia Dana, 1846) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 394. (7) The family-group name CANDACIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892 (type-genus Candacia Dana, 1846) (an incorrect original spelling for CANDACIIDAE) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 416. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.). 1520) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. G. D. Grice and Dr. W. Vervoort in February 1962. The application was sent to the printer on 9 March 1962 and was published on 11 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 Nomencl. 20 : 150-152. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to one specialist serial. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 October 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)22 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 151-152. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 5 January 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-six (26), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Brinck, Jaczewski, Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, do Amaral, Simpson, Boschma, Tortonese, Bonnet, Evans, Sabrosky, Ride, Binder, Uchida, Miller, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado, Borchsenius, Stoll, Kraus. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Candace Dana, 1849, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sci. 2 : 22 Candacia Dana, 1846, Amer. J. Sci. Arts (2) 1 : 228 CANDACIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892, an incorrect original spelling for CANDACIIDAE q.v. CANDACIIDAE Giesbrecht, 1892, Fauna Flora Golfes Neapel 19 : 67 Ifionyx Kroyer, 1846 (?), in Gaimard, Voy. Comm. Sci. Nord... . “* Recherche”’, (Zool.) : pl. 42 pachydactyla, Candace, Dana, 1849, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sci. 2 : 23 typicus, Ifionyx, Kroyer, 1846 (?), in Gaimard, Voy. Comm. Sci. Nord... . ** Recherche’, (Zool.): pl. 42 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)22 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 733. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Honorary Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 February 1965 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 734 NAIADITES ANGULATUS DAWSON, 1860 (LAMELLIBRANCHIA): INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE RULING.—(1) It is hereby Ruled that the nominal species Naiadites angulatus Dawson, 1860, is to be interpreted by reference to the specimen No. 3132 in the Redpath Museum, Montreal, Canada. (2) The specific name angulatus Dawson, 1860, as published in the binomen Naiadites angulatus (as interpreted by the Ruling given in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2078. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1525) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in March 1962 by Mrs. J. Rogers. Mrs. Rogers’ application was sent to the printer on 9 March 1962 and was published on 11 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 153-154. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184). The proposals were supported by Dr. J. Weir (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 155), Dr. R. M. C. Eager (op. cit.: 156), Dr. R. B. Wilson, Dr. A. Pastiels and Dr. Eva Paproth. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 5 October 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)23 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20: 154. At the close of the pres- cribed voting period on 5 January 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Brinck, Jaczewski, Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, do Amaral, Simpson, Boschma, Tortonese, Bonnet, Evans, Ride, Binder, Uchida, Miller, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado, Borchsenius, Stoll. Negative votes—two (2): Sabrosky, Kraus. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (12.x.64): I do not see why the specimen in question (R.M. No. 3132) should not be made a neotype, because that is what the action asked by Mrs. Rogers of the Commission actually amounts to. Prof. G. G. Simpson (4.xii.64): I vote “ for *’ because the intention is clearly good. The wording of the proposal nevertheless seems inadequate or am- biguous. What does “ interpreted by reference to ’ mean in terms of the Code? Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (23.xii.64): The Commission would unduly intrude into zoology to rule on this case. I see no need for an Opinion. Accustomed usage can be continued, and Naiadites angulatus Dawson can be interpreted as it has been, particularly by reference to Redpath Museum specimen 3132. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 Dr. Otto Kraus (7.1.65): For reasons of principle I cannot vote for the pro- posed interpretation of a nominal species by reference to a specimen which is not a [lecto-]type and is not a neotype. ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official List of Specific Names by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: angulatus, Naiadites, Dawson, 1860, Supplement to ‘‘ Acadian Geology ”’: 45. CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)23 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com- mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 734. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Honorary Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 February 1965 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 735 BIOMPHALARIA PRESTON, 1910 (GASTROPODA): GRANT UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF PRECEDENCE OVER PLANORBINA HALDEMAN, 1842, TAPHIUS H. & A. ADAMS, 1855, AND ARMIGERUS CLESSIN 1884. RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby Ruled that the generic name Biomphalaria Preston, 1910, is to be given precedence over the generic names Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855, and Armigerus Clessin, 1884, by any zoologist who considers that any or all of these names apply to the same taxonomic genus. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Biomphalaria smithi Preston, 1910 (Name No. 1675); (b) Planorbina Haldeman, 1842 (gender : feminine), type-species, by desig- nation by Dall, 1905, Planorbis olivaceus Spix, 1827 (by direction under the plenary powers, not available for use in preference to Biomphalaria Preston, 1910, by any zoologist who considers the type-species of these two nominal genera to be congeneric) (Name No. 1676); (c) Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Planorbis andecolus d’Orbigny, 1835 (by direction under the plenary powers, not available for use in preference to Biomphalaria Preston, 1910, by any zoologist who considers the type- species of these two nominal genera to be congeneric) (Name No. 1677); . (d) Armigerus Clessin, 1884 (gender : masculine), type-species, by desig- nation by Morrison, 1947, Planorbis albicans Pfeiffer, 1839) (by direction under the plenary powers, not available for use in preference to Biomphalaria Preston, 1910, by any zoologist who considers the type-species of these two nominal genera to be congeneric) (Name No. 1678). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) smithi Preston, 1910, as published in the binomen Biomphalaria smithi (type-species of Biomphalaria Preston, 1910) (Name No. 2079); (b) olivaceus Spix, 1827, as published in the binomen Planorbis olivaceus (type-species of Planorbina Haldeman, 1842) (Name No. 2080); (c) andecolus d’Orbigny, 1835, as published in the binomen Planorbis andecolus (type-species of Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855) (Name No. 2081); (d) albicans Pfeiffer, 1839, as published in the binomen Planorbis albicans (type-species of Armigerus Clessin, 1884) (Name No. 2082). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1392) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. C. W. Wright in October 1958. An application was sent to the printer on 13 July 1961 and was published on 2 February 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 39-41. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to six specialist serials. Dr. Wright’s application was supported by Dr. R. Hubendick, Prof. B. G. Peters, Dr. E. Binder, Dr. H. J. O’D. Burke-Gaffney, Dr. V. de V. Clark (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 260-261), Dr. S. M. Willmott, Prof. E. A. Malek, Prof. F. S. Barbosa (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 97-98), Dr. D. S. Brown, Dr. R. J. Pitchford, Dr. G. Mandahl-Barth and Prof. J. A. van Eeden. Objections by Dr. P. H. Fischer and Dr. H. J. Walter were published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 253; 20 : 93-97. Dr. Wright’s reply to Dr. Walter’s objection appeared in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 98-99. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 24 October 1963 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (63)26 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 41. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 24 January 1964 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Hemming, Brinck, Hering, Vokes, Bonnet, Mayr, Tortonese, Riley, Boschma, Stoll, Jaczewski, Lemche, Uchida, Simpson, Borchsenius, Miller, do Amaral, Alvarado, Binder, Evans. Negative votes—eight (8): Holthuis, Hubbs, Forest, Obruchev, Mertens, Kraus, Ride, Sabrosky. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. In returning their negative votes a number of Commissioners commented on Dr. Wright’s request. These comments are given below. Dr. L. B. Holthuis (1.xi.63): “ In view of the strongly conflicting statements by the specialists giving evidence here (Wright: ‘* Taphius ... is a name almost unknown to medical biologists and only a little more familiar to professional malacologists ’’; Fischer: ‘* Taphius, que tous les malacologistes connaissent, et que est d’un usage constant depuis plus d’un siécle *’; Wright: ‘* Biomphal- aria ...is probably the most widely known and is one of the more extensively used of the series’’; Fischer: ‘* Biomphalaria...1a majorité des Planorbes de ce groupe n’a jamais été designée sous ce nom.’’) and because of several weak points in Dr. Wright’s application I cannot give my support to his pro- posal. These weak points in my opinion are: (1) Planorbina is evidently the oldest available name in the group of genera under consideration and has been adopted by several prominent workers, and even is included in an authorative handbook like that of Thiele. These are strong arguments against a suppression of this name. Corrigendum page 95 line 3 For “ Dr. C. W. Wright” read “ Dr. C. A. Wright”. 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) The Commission cannot be the judge of taxonomic problems, and there- fore I do not think it correct for the Commission to suppress generic names on the ground of subjective synonymy. Without prejudice about the correctness of the views of Drs. Wright or Walter, it seems not right to suppress the name Taphius as a synonym of Biomphalaria, aslongasthere is a chance that these two names represent different taxa. If the Commission grants Dr. Wright’s request, Dr. Walter has to find a new name for a genus that before this action had a perfectly valid name. Whatever the Commission does, I feel that it certainly cannot suppress the name Taphius altogether. In order to save both Taphius and Biomphalaria both might be placed on the Official List with the annotation that Biomphalaria should be given precedence over Taphius. However, looking at the problem as a whole, I believe that strict priority will lead to the least confusion here. As so many genera are now being lumped, a number of familiar names will disappear and instability will reign till the new nomenclature is settled, why not take this opportunity for a drastic action and adopt the oldest available name, especially as this name has been adopted by several of the foremost authorities? This course will lead to the least confusion and complications. It is for these reasons that I feel to have to vote against the majority opinion here. Dr. C. L. Hubbs (18.xi.63): “I am fully sympathetic with the spirit of the proposal by Dr. Wright, but feel that it is definitely the wrong approach, un- necessarily confusing taxonomic judgment with nomenclature. The point taken by Dr. Wright could be attained by application of the plenary powers to provide that, if regarded as synonymous with Biomphalaria, any of the other genera named (as nominal genera) are not to take precedence by reason of their priority. This would leave such names as Taphius (and the others) available for either subgeneric or generic rank. We should not deny such availability ”’. Dr. O. Kraus (16.i.64): “It seems to me that the Commission is asked by the present application to take an action based on taxonomic arguments but not on nomenclatorial facts. The taxonomy is still under discussion and has not yet been settled as is demonstrated by subsequent comments to the case. So in my opinion the only action which can be taken by the Commission in the present situation is to suppress the name Planorbina which for a long period has been only cited in synonymy. For these reasons I cannot vote for the proposal as it stands at present ”’. Dr. W. D. L. Ride (23.i.64): “* The Commission is being asked to use its plenary powers to restrict freedom of taxonomic action by Wright who, having adopted subjective synonymy, would like to have one of the junior subjective synonyms made senior by the invalidation of the others. Only confusion can result. Those who do not agree with this synonymy will have to propose new names to replace those suppressed (or revive other junior synonyms if these exist). I hold, therefore, that this proposal offends against the spirit of the Code. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97 There is also a divergence of opinion on the question of usage of Taphius (see Fischer). I believe that there should be further discussion and investigation to determine (a) whether or not one or other of these authors has overstated the case regarding usage, (b) if it is desirable that Biomphalaria should become the senior synonym in cases of subjective synonymy involving these other generic names, that the plenary powers be used to modify the date of Biomphalaria so that it becomes senior in this context. This would produce the desired result in subjective synonymy yet would leave the other names valid for use by those who recognize more than one genus here ”’. Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (24.i.64): “‘ This case mixes zoology and nomenclature. The “‘ confusion in nomenclature ” lamented by several of the supporters of the application is largely difference in zoological opinion, and accordingly use of different zoological names. To adopt Biomphalaria will also require changes on the part of those who are accustomed to using Australorbis and Tropicorbis, both well-known names. It would have been little different to have adopted Planorbina, rather than choosing the relatively recent Biomphalaria (1910) with so many older names potentially available. I strongly agree with Hubbs in opposing this method of approach. Taphius et al. should not be “ indexed ” out of reach but should be left accessible for zoologists who consider them applicable to distinct groups, or who might do so in the future. Adoption of the oldest name, Planorbina, would leave all the others in subjective synonymy, from which they could be revived at any time without recourse to the Commission by any author who believed that the group they represent should be segregated from the larger one. Malacologists at the U.S. National Museum tell me that they regard the names in question as falling into two distinct genera, one of which is Taphius. Taphius should not be suppressed as long as such difference of zoological opinion exists. Actually, the argument is strong for using Planorbina, the oldest name. Then Taphius (or any other) can be adopted for a distinct genus, or for a subgenus, as an author wishes. It will serve zoology ill to choose a name as young as Biomphalaria, and thereby to handicap zoologists in their legitimate study of zoology ”’. Upon reading these comments the applicant, Dr. Wright, wrote “I see the point of not suppressing Taphius in case it should subsequently prove to have validity, and if it is possible for the Commission to preserve both names, but to give Biomphalaria the precedence over Taphius, | think that this would be an ideal solution to the problem ”’. Since eight Commissioners had opposed Dr. Wright’s proposals, and Dr. Wright himself had agreed that his original application was possibly not the most suitable solution of the problem, the Acting Secretary to the Commission decided to lay before the Commission the alternative proposals suggested by three Commissioners in their comments, and agreed to by Dr. Wright. Con- sequently, on 30 October 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote on Voting Paper (64)24 either for or against proposals contained in a report accompanying that Voting Paper. The report contained details of voting on V.P. (63)26 together with the comments of Commissioners (as set out above) and the following proposal: 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ‘A number of Commissioners in returning negative votes, indicated their willingness to grant precedence under the plenary powers to Biomphalaria over its senior subjective synonyms. Dr Wright has agreed with this proposal (see accompanying comments). It is therefore proposed that the Commission vote on V.P. (64)24 to take the following action: (1) to Rule under the plenary powers that Biomphalaria Preston, 1910, is to be given precedence over the generic names Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855 and Armigerus Clessin, 1884, by any zoologist who considers that any or all of these names apply to the same taxonomic genus. (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Biomphalaria smithi Preston, 1910; (b) Planorbina Haldeman, 1842 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Dall, 1905, Planorbis olivaceus Spix, 1827 (under the plenary powers not to be given precedence over Biomphalaria Preston, 1910): (c) Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation P/lanorbis andecolus d’Orbigny, 1835 (under the plenary powers not to be given precedence over Biomphalaria Preston, 1910); (d) Armigerus Clessin, 1884 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Morrison, 1947, Planorbis albicans Pfeiffer, 1839 (under the plenary powers not to be given precedence over Biomphalaria Preston, 1910); (3) to place the specific names of the type-species of the above genera on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.” At the close of the prescribed voting period on 5 January 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Vokes, Obruchev, do Amaral, Simpson, Boschma, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Bonnet, Evans, Ride, Binder, Uchida, Mertens, Alvarado, Stoll, Kraus. Negative votes—six (6): Brinck, Riley, Sabrosky, Miller, Forest, Borchsenius. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: ; Mr. N. D. Riley (12.xi.64): “‘ On reading the original application again, and in particular the comments circulated with this new Voting Paper, I am of the opinion that this is a case in which the Rules should not be suspended, unless it be for the purposes of establishing a satisfactory type-species for the genus Planorbina”’. Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (23.xii.64): “‘ | continue to oppose, and agree with the conclusion of Holthuis that “strict priority will lead to the least confusion here’. The other objectors have concentrated on Taphius or Biomphalaria, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 but no one has really evaluated the relative merits of Planorbina vs. Biomphalaria. Planorbina was adopted by Germain (1921), Thiele (1931) and Burch (1960). Adoption of Planorbina would have the double merit of following the Code (priority), and of permitting full taxonomic freedom to use any of the junior subjective synonyms as needed, without recourse to the Commission ”’. Prof. A. H. Miller (1.1.65): “‘ I find it a confusing and poor principle to retain names and switch their priority rather than suppress them. Re-study of this case leads me to think we do not have a good solution and it is better to let priority hold sway ”’. Dr. J. Forest (4.1.65): “ Je dois maintenir mon vote négatif. En effet, si la nouvelle proposition réponds aux objections d’ordre taxonomique, elle donne toujours la priorité 4 Biomphalaria sur des synonymes beaucoup plus ancien. Partageant l’opinion de L. B. Holthuis et de C. W. Sabrosky, je pense qu’il eut été préférable d’appliquer strictement la loi de priorité et de valider le nom le plus ancien, Planorbina Haldeman, qui, loin d’étre un nom oublié a, 4 une époque récente et a plusieurs reprises, été utilisé par des malacologistes éminents ”’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: albicans, Planorbis, Pfeiffer, 1839, Arch. Naturgesch. 5 (1) : 354 andecolus, Planorbis, d’Orbigny, 1835, Mag. Zool. 5 : 26 Armigerus Clessin, 1884, Conch. Cab. Martini-Chemnitz (ed. 2) I, 17 : 120 Biomphalaria Preston, 1910, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 6 (35) : 535, pl. 7, figs. 26, 26a olivaceus, Planorbis, Spix, 1827, Test. fluviat. Brasil.: 26 Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, Mon. Freshw. Univalve Moll. U.S.:14 smithi, Biomphalaria, Preston, 1910, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 6 (35) : 353, pl. 7, figs. 26, 26a Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855, Gen. rec. Moll. 2 : 262 The following are the original references for designations of type-species for genera concerned in the present Ruling: For Planorbina Haldeman, 1842: Dall, 1905, Harriman Alaska Exped. 13 : 84 For Armigerus Clessin, 1884 : Morrison, 1947, Nautilus 61 (1) : 30-31 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (63)26 and (64)24 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in the latter Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 735. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Honorary Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 18 February 1965 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LIMACIA MULLER, 1781 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TO PREVENT A NOMENCLATORIAL DISTURBANCE. Z.N.(S.) 1665 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15, Copenhagen, Denmark) A recent enquiry from Mr. Joshua E. Baily Jr., brought to light a defect concerning the generic name Limacia O. F. Muller, 1781 (Zool. Dan. (ed. 2) 1 (Danish Text): 65). Muller included the following named species in that genus: “ verrucosa Seb.” (= Doris verrucosa Linnaeus), clavigera, quadrilineata (these two species described on the following pages in that book), fasciculata (= Limax marinus Forskal), papillosa (= Limax papillosus Linnaeus), auriculata (which can be identified from Muller’s figure published by Abildgaard (1806, Zool. Dan. 4: pl. 138, fig. 1)), and /acinulata (= Limax tergipes Forskal). Hence, the name Limacia, pending type-selection, could gain priority over any of the following generic names: Euphurus Rafinesque, 1815, Polycera Cuvier, 1816, Aeolidia Cuvier, 1798, Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855, Tergipes Cuvier, 1805, and Fiona Forbes & Hanley, 1851. All of these names are in constant use except the first which has now become generally replaced by Limacia. 2. The name Limacia was completely forgotten until Ellis (1950, J. Conch. 23 : 132) published some notes left by the late R. Winckworth, without noticing that they had been purposely withheld by Winckworth, as they were not ripe for publication. Ellis’ introduction of Limacia was generally accepted though not accompanied by any type designation. It is here sought to remedy that defect by selecting Doris clavigera Muller, 1776, as the type-species. No family name is involved in this case. 3. Since, however, any undetected earlier and inadequate type designation would gravely upset the nomenclature of the group, I hereby request as a safe- guard that the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature should: (1) use its plenary powers to set aside all type-designation for the nominal genus Limacia Muller, 1781, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, designate Doris clavigera Muller, 1776, to be the type-species of that genus; (2) place the generic name Limacia Muller, 1781 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Doris clavigera Muller, 1776, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoo- logy; (3) place the specific name clavigera Muller, 1776, as published in the binomen Doris clavigera (type-species of Limacia Muller, 1781) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 NOCTUA BARBARA FABRICIUS, 1794 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED REJECTION AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.AS.) 1670 By D. F. Hardwick (Entomology Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada) During the course of a recently completed revision of the armigera group of the genus Heliothis, it was drawn to my attention that the specific name barbara Fabricius (Noctua barbara Fabricius, 1794, Ent. Syst. 3 (2) : 111) is a senior subjective synonym of Heliothis armigera Hiibner=(Noctua armigera Hiibner, [1803-1808], Sammi. europ. Schmett., Noct. 2, fig. 370). From Fabricius’ description of N. barbara, and from A. J. Coquebert’s subsequent figure of the Fabrician specimen of the species (1801, J/lustratio iconographica insectorum quae in musaeis parisinis observavit et in lucem edidit Joh. Christ. Fabricius, part 2: pl. 17, fig. 3), there can be no doubt that N. barbara is synonymous with N. armigera as figured by Hiibner. 2. In 1829, Stephens (Syst. Cat. Brit. Ins. 2 : 107) synonymized N. barbara with Heliothis peltigera Schiffermiiller (=Noctua peltigera Schiffermiiller, 1776, Systematisches Verzeichniss der Schmetterlinge der Wienergegend). This synonymy has been accepted by all subsequent authors. Because N. barbara has been considered a junior synonym of Heliothis peltigera for over one hundred years, and because, until now, it has never been associated with that species known in the Old World as Heliothis armigera, it is hereby requested that in the interests of stability the name Noctua barbara be suppressed. 3. Heliothis armigera is a prominent pest of cotton, maize and many leguminous crops in Africa, Asia and Australia, and the name armigera has appeared repeatedly in both the economic and non-economic literature. The replacement of the name armigera by the name barbara at this time can only provide a source of confusion to present and future generations of entomolo- gists. For this reason the International Commission is hereby requested: (1) to reject the specific name barbara Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Noctua barbara, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy as a nomen oblitum. (2) to place the specific name rejected in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name armigera Hiibner, [1803-1808], as published in the binomen Noctua armigera, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NAJAS HUBNER, [1807] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA, NYMPHALIDAE): PROPOSED REJECTION AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1686 By Francis Hemming (deceased) The type-species of Najas Hiibner is the nominal species Najas themis Hiibner, [1807], named and figured in Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [60]. The taxon represented by the foregoing nominal species is currently treated sub- jectively as being congeneric with that represented by the nominal species Papilio cyparissa Cramer, [1775] (Uitl. Kapellen 1 (4) : 63, pl. 39, figs. D, E), the type-species, by selection by Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10: 172), of the nominal genus Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819] (Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (3) : 39). 2. The name Najas has an unfortunate history, for it is one of the names which first saw the light in the ill-fated pamphlet of Hiibner’s entitled the Tentamen of 1806. When after some eighty years of oblivion, an effort was made by some authors to resuscitate the Tentamen, the name Najas obtained a certain vogue, being used by some authors in place of the well-known name Limenitus Fabricius, 1807, of which, if the Tentamen had been an available work, it would have been a senior objective synonym, the genera bearing these names both having Papilio populi Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species. Following the rejection by the Commission of the Tentamen for nomenclatorial purposes (in Opinion 97), the place where the name Najas ranked from became the first volume of Hiibner’s Sammi. exot. Schmett., Najas themis Hiibner, the sole species placed in this genus on its introduction in 1807, then becoming the type- species by monotypy. On this basis, as already explained, Najas became a senior subjective synonym of Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819]. It has however never been employed in this sense. It would be highly objectionable if Euphaedra were to be replaced in this way, for it is universally employed for a large genus of Tropical African Nymphalids and, as such, is very well known. 3. The International Commission is therefore requested to take the following action: (1) to reject the generic name Najas Hiibner, [1807], for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy as a nomen oblitum; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (3) : 39 (gender : feminine), type-species by designation by Scudder (1897, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10: 172), Papilio cyparissa Cramer, [1775], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (4) : 63, pl. 39, figs. D, E); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name cyparissa Cramer, [1775], as published in the binomen Papilio cyparissa (type-species of Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819]); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Najas Hiibner, [1807], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : [pl. 60] (as rejected in (1) above). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. { ‘ 4 | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103 AETHEIUS HUBNER, [1819] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA, RIODINIDAE): PROPOSED REJECTION AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.S.) 1687 By Francis Hemming (deceased) Hiibner established the genus Aetheius for three nominal species, of which one was Papilio archytas Stoll, [1787] (Aanhangs. Werk Uitl. Kapellen Pieter Cramer: 25, pl. 25, fig. 5). Both this and the other two species placed in this genus by Hiibner are referrable to the family RIODINIDAE. Kirby, when dealing with Papilio archytas in 1871 (Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep.: 632), fell into the error of supposing that this species was a member of the family HESPERIIDAE, placing it in the genus Ach/yodes Hiibner, [1819]. Scudder in his work on the generic names of the butterflies followed Kirby on taxonomic, as contrasted with nomenclatorial, matters, and he therefore also treated Aetheius as a Hesperiid genus when (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts. Sci, Boston 10 : 104) he selected Papilio archytas to be its type-species. Thereafter, the name Aetheius virtually disappeared from the literature, being rightly rejected by workers on the Hesperiids and being overlooked by specialists in the Riodinids. This process of neglect was completed in 1887 (Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1887 : 175) when Baker established the genus Ourocnemis with Anteros axiochus Hewitson, [1867] (U/l. exot. Butts. 4 : [77], pl. 42, figs. 1, 2) as type-species by monotypy, for the taxon represented by the nominal species which is, and for long has been, identified subjectively with that represented by Papilio archytas Stoll. Thus, on the basis of current taxonomic ideas, the name Ourocnemis Baker is a junior subjective synonym of Aetheius Hiibner. Nevertheless, during the period of over three-quarters of a century which has elapsed since the publica- tion of Baker’s paper, the name Ourocnemis has been consistently employed for this genus and the name Aetheius has not been used at all and is a nomen oblitum. There would clearly be no advantage in seeking to bring to life at this stage the long moribund name Aetheius Hiibner and accordingly the Commission is asked to suppress it in the interests of nomenclatorial stability. 2. The International Commission is therefore requested to take the following action: (1) to reject the generic name Aetheius Hiibner, [1819], for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy as a nomen oblitum; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name QOurocnemis Baker, 1887, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1887 : 75 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Anteros axiochus Hewitson, [1867], J//. exot. Butts. 4 : [77], pl. 42, figs. 1, 2; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name archytas Stole [1787], as published in the binomen Papilis archytas ; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Aeftheius Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (7) : 109 (as rejected in (1) above). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature GONOPHLEBIA FELDER, 1870 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA, PIERIDAE): PROPOSED REJECTION AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N(S.) 1688 By Francis Hemming (deceased) The type-species of the genus Gonophlebia R. Felder, June 1870, by monotypy is Globiceps paradoxa C. & R. Felder, 1869 (Petites Nouvelles ent. 1 (8) : [31)). In the same year (1870, Ent. Ztg. 31 : 348) Plétz established a genus to which he gave the name Pseudopontia, the type species of which (by monotypy) is a nominal species to which he gave the name Pseudopontia calabarica (loc. cit. 31 : 348, pl. 2, figs. laf). These two nominal species are currently treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as representing the same species. Accord- ingly, the genera Gonophlebia and Pseudopontia, of which these nominal species are the respective type-species, represent the same taxonomic unit. These generic names are therefore subjective synonyms of one another. There is no doubt as to the relative priority of these names, although both of them were published in the same year (1870), for the part of the Petites Nouvelles ent. con- taining the name Gonophlebia was published in the month of June, whereas the Part of the Ent. Ztg. of Stettin containing the name Pseudopontia did not appear until September. The name Gonophilebia has therefore a clear priority of be- tween two and three months over the name Pseudopontia. This genus is invariably known by the name Pseudopontia. That genus is moreover the type-genus of the subfamily PSEUDOPONTIINAE established by Reuter in 1897 (Acta Soc. Sci. fenn. 22 (1) : 288). It would be a disaster if the name Pseudopontia for this most interesting and highly specialised genus were now to be replaced by Gonophlebia which has not been used since it was estab- lished and which is now virtually unknown. The International Commission is therefore requested to take the following action: i (1) to reject the generic name Gonophlebia Felder, 1870, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy as a nomen oblitum; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Pseudopontia Plétz, 1870, Ent. Ztg., Stettin 31 : 348 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Pseudopontia calabarica Plotz, 1870, loc. cit. 31 : 348, pl. 2, figs. la-f; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name paradoxa C. & R. Felder, 1869, Petites Nouvelles ent. 1 (8) : [31], as published in the binomen Globiceps paradoxa; (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the subfamily name PSEUDOPONTIINAE Reuter, 1897, Acta Soc. Sci. fenn. 22 (1) : 228 (type-genus Pseudopontia Plétz, 1870); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Gonophlebia R. Felder, 1870, Petites Nouvelles ent. 2 (24) : 95 (as rejected in (1) above). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. —_- aa is Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 MELANOPLUS STAL, 1873, ACRYDIUM FEMURRUBRUM DeGEER, 1773, AND GRYLLUS SANGUINIPES FABRICIUS, 1798 (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA); PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE OFFICIAL LISTS. Z.N.(S.) 1695 By D. K. McE. Kevan and V. R. Vickery (Department of Entomology and Lyman Entomological Museum, McGill University, Macdonald College, Province of Quebec, Canada) The genus Melanoplus Stal, 1873, is very large and contains a number of species of economic importance, including the Migratory grasshopper of Canada and the United States of America. The object of this submission is to stabilize the name of this very important species. 2. Gurney and Brooks (1959) and Gurney (1962) review the history of the scientific name of the Migratory grasshopper, so that only the salient points need to be mentioned here. Riley (1875) described this species as Caloptenus atlanis. It was transferred to the genus Melanoplus Stal, 1873, by Scudder (1878), when he formally raised the latter to full generic status.1_ It was not, however, until after a later publication (Scudder, 1881) that it became generally known for many years (until 1917) as Melanoplus atlanis (Riley). Hebard (1917) synonymized atlanis with M. mexicanus (Saussure, 1861), to which it was most frequently referred until a few years ago, when Brooks (1958) adopted the name M. bilituratus (Walker, 1870). This was done on the basis of a revision that was not, however, published until the following year (Gurney and Brooks, 1959). M. mexicanus was shown to be a distinct, southern species; Walker’s Caloptenus bilituratus and not Saussure’s Pezotettix mexicanus, was, in fact, the species in question. 3. For a few recent years Melanoplus bilituratus (Walker) was used exten- sively, but Gurney (1962) showed this to be a junior subjective synonym of Gryllus sanguinipes Fabricius, 1798, a name apparently only used once in the literature subsequent to the original description, namely by Scudder (1901) in his Index to North American Orthoptera. Brooks (1962), in a posthumously pub- lished note, drew the attention of economic (and other) entomologists to the name change. However, Kevan (1962) pointed out that, under Article 23 (b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (which came into force in the year previous to the publication of Gurney’s discovery), Gryllus sanguinipes Fabricius, 1798, must be considered a nomen oblitum, and “is not to be used unless the [International] Commission [on Zoological Nomenclature] so directs’. While Kevan indicated in no uncertain terms that he objected to the rule regarding nomina oblita in Article 23 (b), he stated that, since there was a rule, it should be observed pending direction from the Commission. 4. Article 23 (b) has subsequently been much criticised and some modifica- tions regarding its literal interpretation may eventually result from the discus- 1 He used the spelling ‘‘ atlantis” although noting Riley’s original spelling. Scudder (1874) had informally used Melanoplus in a full generic sense in an earlier publication, but not in combination with atlanis. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature sions at the International Congress of Zoology in Washington, 1963. Until such time as the position is clarified with respect to the offending Article, however, action is needed in such cases as the present. Despite Article 23 (b), the name Melanoplus sanguinipes (Fabricius, 1798) has been used (illegitimately) in numerous scientific publications (e.g., by Alexander, 1964; Anderson, 1964; Edwards, 1964; Pickford, 1964; Pickford and Riegert, 1964; D. S. Smith, 1964; R. W. Smith, 1965) and even in widely distributed popular literature (United States, 1964). The “correct” (but unacceptable) use of the junior synonym M. bilituratus (Walker) has been almost completely superseded, although R. W. Smith (1965) has drawn attention to the point made by Kevan (1962). A name long in confusion now appears to be in danger of remaining in confusion by the Application of Article 23 (b). All workers in all fields appear to be tacitly in agreement regarding the use of the earliest available name sanguinipes, although it is probably not so generally recognized that it is a nomen oblitum according to the Code. It is certainly not one in practice. To avoid any further confusion involving a return to the name bilituratus which was never used consistently for long, application is hereby made to the Commission to set aside Article 23 (b) in the case of Gryllus sanguinipes Fabricius, 1798, and thus to validate its recent extensive use in the literature. At the same time it would be expedient to place the generic name Melanoplus Stal, 1873, and its type species, Acrydium femurrubrum DeGeer, 1773, on the appropriate Official Lists. It is therefore proposed that the Commission: (1) place the following on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Melanoplus Stal, 1873, Recens. Orth. 1:79 (gender : masculine), type-species Acrydium femurrubrum DeGeer, 1773 (by subsequent designation, Kirby, 1910, Syn. Cat. Orth. 3 : 509); (2) place the following on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) femurrubrum DeGeer, 1773, Mém. Hist. Ins. 3 : 498, pl. 42, fig. 5, as published in the binomen Acrydium femur rubrum (type- species of Melanoplus Stal, 1873); (b) sanguinipes Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 195, as published in the binomen Gryllus sanguinipes. REFERENCES ALEXANDER, G. 1964. Occurrence of grasshoppers as accidentals in the Rocky Mountains of Northern Colorado, Ecology, 45 : 77-86. ANDERSON, N. L. 1964. Some relationships between grasshoppers and vegetation. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 57 : 736-742. Brooks, A. R. 1958. Acridoidea of Southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Mani- toba. Canad. Ent. 90 (Suppl. 9) : 1-92. —— 1962. In MacNay, C. G. (Ed.) Grasshoppers (Acrididae) Canada—Nomen- clature. Canad. Ins. Pest Rev. 40 : 2. Epwarps, R. L. 1964. Some Ecological Factors Affecting the Grasshopper Popu- lations of Western Canada. Canad. Ent. 96 : 307-320. Gurney, A. B. 1962. On the name of the Migratory grasshopper of the United States and Canada, Melanoplus sanguinipes (F.) (Orthoptera, Acrididae). Proc. biol. Soc. Washington, 75 : 189-192. — and Brooks, A. 1959. Grasshoppers of the mexicanus group, Genus Melano- plus (Orthoptera : Acrididae). Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 110 : 1-93, pl. 1-5. | Bulletin of Z oological Nomenclature 107 HeEBARD, M. 1917. Notes on the Mexican Melanopli (Orthoptera, Acrididae). Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 67 : 25\-275. KEVAN, D. K. McE. 1962. In MacNay, G. C. (Ed.). [Note under the heading ** Grasshoppers (Acrididae) : Nomenclature. ”). Canad. Ins. Pest Rev. ? 16-77. PICKFORD, R. 1964. Life History and Behaviour of Scelio calopteni Riley (Hymen- optera : Scelionidae), a Parasite of Grasshopper Eggs. Canad. Ent. 96: 1167-1172. —— and RIEGERT, P. W. 1964. The Fungous Disease Caused by Entomophthora grylli Fres., and its Effects on Grasshopper Populations in Saskatchewan in 1963. Canad. Ent. 96 : 1158-1166, Rivey,'C: V._1875. Annual Report of the noxious, beneficial and other insects of the state of Missouri, Jefferson C ity, Missouri, 7 : 8 + 196 + 4 pp., | map. Scupper, S.H. 1874. The distribution of insects in New Hampshire. Hitchcock’s final Rep. Geol. New Hampshire 1 : 331-384. —— 1878. Remarks on the Calliptenus and Melanoplus with a notice of the species found in New ngland. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 19 : 281-286. =, 1881... List of the Orthoptera collected by Dr. Alpheus Spring Packard in the western United States in the summer of 1877. Rep. U.S. ent. Commiss. 2 (Appendix 2) : (23]{28], pl. XVII [dated 1880]. —— 1901. Alphabetical Index to North American Orthoptera described in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 6: i-viii, 1-436. SmitH, D.S. 1964. Ovarioles and Developing Eggs in Grasshoppers. Canad. Ent. 96 : 1255-1258. SmitH, R. W. 1965. A field population of Melanoplus sanguinipes (Fab.) (Orthop- tera : Acrididae) and its parasites. Canad. J. Zool. 43 - 179-201. UNITED States, Entomology Research Division and Plant Pest Control Division, Agricultural Research Service. 1964. Grasshopper Control. U.S. Dep. Agric. Fmrs. Bull. 2193 : 1-12. 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LEUCTRA STEPHENS, 1835 (INSECTA, PLECOPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1671 By P. Brinck (Zoological Institute, Lund) and J. Illies (Hydrobiologische Anstalt, Plén) The object of the present application is to request the use of the plenary powers to stabilize the usage of the generic name Leuctra, as understood for over a century, by designating for that genus a type-species. 2. The generic name Leuctra was first used by Stephens, 1835 (d/l. Brit. Ent. 6 : 144) as a subgenus of Nemoura, including a few species (e.g. N. geniculata Stephens, 1835 and N. fusciventris Stephens, 1835). Stephens, however, did not designate a type-species. Westwood, 1838 (Introd. mod. Classif. Ins., Syn. Gen. Brit. Ins. : 47) selected Leuctra geniculata (Stephens, 1835) as the type-species of the genus Leuctra. 3. In 1841, Pictet (Hist. nat. Ins. Nevropt., Fam. Perlidae: 369) stated that within the genus Leuctra the species L. geniculata (Stephens) holds a unique position. Ina revision of the genus Leuctra, Mosely 1932 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 10 : 2) wrote: ‘* Had not Westwood selected geniculata as the genotype, I should seriously have considered its removal to another genus, as hinted at by Pictet. The alternative, to erect a new genus for all the other species, seems more revolutionary than the circumstances warrant, but it is unfortunate that not a single one of the other species in the genus should conform to the characters of the genotype ”’. 4. Asa matter of fact among the 108 species of the genus Leuctra hitherto known, 107 form a closely related group which is fundamentally different from L. geniculata (Stephens). The latter species has to be placed in a separate genus. 5. If L. geniculata is accepted as type-species of the genus Leuctra, a new genus must be erected for the remaining 107 species which have until now been included in Leuctra. A genus well known for more than a century as an important component in biological productivity of running water would become a monospecific unit, whilst more than a hundred species would have to change their generic name. This would inevitably lead to great confusion. 6. In order to avoid such a confusion Phryganea fusca Linnaeus, 1758, is proposed as the type-species of the genus Leuctra. 7. The species Phryganea fusca Linnaeus, 1758, was discussed by Brinck 1949 (Stud. Swed. Stoneflies, Opusc. Ent., Suppl. 11 : 8-9) and its identity with Nemoura (Leuctra) fusciventris Stephens, 1835, .was settled. The original material of Linnaeus is lost. According to Brinck the material used for the description was most probably collected in central Sweden, Dalecarlia (Dalarna), near Falun, in 1743, between the 17th of August and the first days of November. In order to fix the nomen- clatorial position of the species a male from that region has to be designated as the neotype. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. en eee Se ed Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 Consequently, a male from the collections of the Entomological Museum of the University of Lund (Sweden) will be selected as the neotype. It is labelled: ““Leuctra fusca L. Schweden, Dalarna, Falun, Sept. 1919, leg. Klefbeck, NEOTYPUS design. P. Brinck and J. Illies 1964.” (A female of the same lot kept together with the male, is considered the neoallotype). The neotype corresponds to the description and the figures in Brinck 1962 (Svensk Insektf. 15, Plecoptera, p. 64, fig. 34). 8. The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside the selection of L. geniculata Stephens as type-species for the genus Leuctra Stephens, 1835, made by Westwood 1840, and having done so, to designate as type-species for that genus Phryganea fusca Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 549) = Leuctra fusciventris Stephens, 1835 (syn. fide Brinck 1949, Opusc. Ent., Suppl. 11 : 12); (2) to place the generic name Leuctra Stephens, 1835 (gender : feminine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Phryganea fusca Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name fusca Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phryganea fusca, type-species of Leuctra Stephens, 1835, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the family-group name LEUCTRIDAE Klapdlek, 1905 (type-genus Leuctra Stephens, 1835), on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NUPEDIA KARL, 1930 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA): PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 1691 By D. M. Ackland (Hope Dept. of Entomology, Oxford) Meigen, in 1826 (Syst. Beschr. 5 : 176) described Anthomyia dissecta (from a single male) and A. infirma (from both males and females). The type of dissecta is in the Paris Museum, but examples of infirma are to be found both in Paris and in the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna. Meigen, in his description, states that he had received infirma from Wiedemann and Winthem, and therefore the syntypic series is in their collection in Vienna. 2. Stein in 1900 (Ent. Nachr. 24: 129-157) made an examination of Meigen’s types in Paris, and stated that the male holotype of A. dissecta was the same species as ignota Rondani, 1866. In the same paper he stated that infirma in the same collection was also the same species. As dissecta has priority over infirma on the page where they were both described, Stein therefore produced the following synonymy: Anthomyia dissecta Meigen, 1826. = Anthomyia infirma Meigen, 1826. = Chortophila ignota Rondani, 1866. Although Stein never published the fact that he had also examined the syntypes of infirma in Vienna, an examination of them has shown that some of them bear a label in his handwriting ‘‘ Chortophila dissecta det. Stein”’’, and therefore confirms that he believed the above synonymy to be correct, and that the priority of dissecta over infirma made it necessary to use the name of dissecta for the species infirma. 3. A recent examination of the syntypes of infirma Meigen in the Vienna Museum (and selection of a lectotype), and of the male holotype of dissecta Meigen, in the Paris Museum, has shown that the two species are distinct and consequently there is no question of priority for the name dissecta over that of infirma. The type of Anthomyia infirma Meigen is the dissecta Meigen auct. nec Meigen a species of Nupedia Karl which should in future be known as Nupedia infirma (Meigen). The type of dissecta is in very bad condition. The authori- ties in the Paris Museum will, furthermore, not allow it to be dissected. It has been possible, however, to ascertain that it is an immature specimen of a species of Pegohylemyia, and not a Nupedia, closely related to, but probably not identical with Pegohylemyia phrenione (Séguy). In view of the fact that there are certainly additional closely related species as yet undescribed in this group, which can only be separated at present with certainty on characters in the male genitalia, the identity of Meigen’s dissecta must remain somewhat doubtful until it can be dissected. 4. Karl in 1928 (Die Tierwelt Deutschlands 13. Teil. Zweifliigler oder Diptera Ill: Muscidae: 171) erected the subgenus Nudaria, with the name of its type-species Anthomyia dissecta Meigen, 1826, thus following Stein’s incorrect use of this name. In 1930 he replaced this subgeneric name with Nupedia Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 (Zool. Anz. 86 : 174) as Nudaria was preoccupied in Lepidoptera (Haworth, 1809). Collin in 1939 (Entomologist’s mon. Mag. 75 : 147) in dealing with the British species, treated it as a genus, and suggested its limitation to a smaller and more natural group of species closely related to the dissecta Meigen of Stein and Karl, but not of Meigen. From Karl’s description of his Nupedia dissecta (Meigen) it is abundantly clear that he had followed Stein’s misuse of the name dissecta for the species which should be known as infirma Meigen. Thus the species infirma Meigen (and not dissecta Meigen) has since been accepted by all dipterists, including Collin, Séguy, Huckett, and Ringdahl, as the species that was intended by Karl to be the type-species of Nupedia. 5. The foregoing facts show that the designation of the type-species of Nudaria Karl, 1928, and hence Nupedia Karl, 1930 (see (3) above), namely Anthomyia dissecta Meigen, 1826, was based on a misidentification by Stein, and that this misidentification was continued by Karl. In order to preserve the continuity of the present usage of the generic name Nupedia Karl, and to prevent it from being sunk as a synonym of Pegohylemyia Schnabl and Dziedzickii, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Nupedia Karl, 1930, and, having done so, to designate Anthomyia infirma Meigen, 1826 as the type-species of that genus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Nupedia Karl, 1930 (gender : feminine), type-species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers, Anthomyia infirma Meigen, 1826; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name infirma Meigen, 1826, as published in the binomen Anthomyia infirma (type-species of Nupedia Karl, 1930). 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature HETEROTRYPA NICHOLSON, 1879, AND PERONOPORA NICHOLSON, 1881 (BRYOZOA, TREPOSTOMATA: PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES IN CONFORMITY WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED USAGE!. Z.N.(S.) 1693 By John Utgaard and Richard S. Boardman (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.) The present application is submitted to the Commission in accordance with the directive in Article 70 (a) and concerns the misidentification of the type- species of Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849, Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879, and Peronopora Nicholson, 1881. A chronologic summary of actions and state- ments pertinent to the problems follows: 2. D’Orbigny (1849, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 1 : 503) established the genus Monticulipora and designated Monticulipora frustulosa, an erroneous subsequent spelling for pustulosa Michelin, 1846, as the type-species. This species is from the Jurassic of France. See Ops. Decls. int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl. Opinion 443 : 166, 171 and Para- graphs 3 and 23, below. 3. D’Orbigny (1850, Prodrome de Paléontologie 1 : 25) described the new species Monticulipora mammulata and Monticulipora frondosa from the Upper Ordovician at Cincinnati, Ohio. Further, (p. 323) he listed four species of Monticulipora from the Jurassic. For a generic diagnosis of the Jurassic forms d’Orbigny (p. 323) referred to the generic diagnosis given with the Ordovician forms (p. 25). Subsequent students of Paleozoic bryozoans evidently were unaware, until 1934, that d’Orbigny had designated a Jurassic type-species for Monticulipora in 1849 (see Paragraph 2, above) or that he had included Jurassic species in Monticulipora in 1850. 4. Milne-Edwards and Haime (1851, Arch. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 5 : 269, pl. 19) redescribed and illustrated secondary types of Chaetetes mammulatus (d’Orbigny, 1850) and C. frondosus (d’Orbigny, 1850). Milne-Edwards and Haime’s figured specimen of Chaetetes mammulatus is massive (see Paragraph 20 below). 5. Milne-Edwards and Haime (1854, British Fossil Corals, Pal. Soc. [Monogr.] : 265) recognized Chaetetes mammulatus and C. frondosus as Monti- culipora mammulata and M. frondosa. 6. Milne-Edwards (1860, Histoire Naturelle des Coralliaires ou Polypes 3 : 276) redescribed secondary types of Monticulipora mammulata and M. frondosa. 7. Rominger (1866, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. : 116, 117) established Chaetetes decipiens from the Upper Ordovician at Cincinnati, Ohio, and dis- cussed distinguishing features of Chaetetes decipiens and C. frondosus (d’Orbigny, 1850). 1 Published by permission of the Secretary, Smithsonian Institution. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. hs te ee eee cites aan ta Ee - _ ————7= Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 Rominger’s description of Chaetetes decipiens is not sufficiently detailed to be certain of its generic assignment. However, we have obtained and studied syntypes of Chaetetes decipiens Rominger, 1866, and they fit the presently understood Ulrichian concept of Peronopora. 8. Nicholson (1874, Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 30 : 508, 509, pl. 29, 30) described and illustrated secondary types of Chaetetes mammulatus and C. frondosus. He expressed uncertainty in his identification of C. frondosus and provisionally described his material under this name, stating: “ If they should prove to be new, the name of Chaetetes ohioenis might be applied to them.” From Nicholson’s descriptions and illustrations there is no doubt that he misidentified both forms (see Table 1 and Paragraph 20, below). The form Nicholson described as Chaetetes mammulatus is not conspecific nor congeneric with Monticulipora mammulata dOrbigny, 1850, but is congeneric with Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850 (the basis of the Ulrichian and modern concept of Heterotrypa). The form Nicholson described as Chaetetes frondosus is unquestionably not conspecific nor congeneric with Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850, but Nicholson’s material is congeneric with Chaetetes decipiens Rominger, 1866 (the basis of the Ulrichian and modern concept of Peronopora). 9. Nicholson (1875, Rep. geol. Surv. Ohio 2 (2) : 207-209, pl. 22) described specimens which he assigned to Chaetetes mammulatus and described and figured a form which he questionably assigned to Chaetetes frondosus. Nicholson again misidentified his material as described above in Paragraph 8. 10. Nicholson (1876, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (4) 104 : 91, 92, pl. 5) described and illustrated a form which he called Chaetetes frondosus. Again Nicholson misidentified his material as described above in Paragraph8. 11. Nicholson (1879, On the Structure and Affinities of the Tabulate Corals: 271) evidently was unaware that d’Orbigny had designated a Jurassic species as the type of Monticulipora in 1849 (see Paragraph 2, above) and designated Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850, as the type-species of Monticulipora. Further, he split the embracive genus Monticulipora into six “ subgeneric groups” (p. 291). The first “‘ subgeneric group ”’ he listed was Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) Nicholson, and he stated (p. 291), concerning this subgeneric group: “Type of the group the Monticulipora mammulata D’Orb. (which is also the type of the whole genus).”’ Finally, he stated (p. 293), concerning the ““Sub-genus Heterotrypa Nich. 1879’: “ This section includes many of the most typical and most familiar of the species of Monticulipora, comprising among them the M. mammulata, D’Orb., which, as the species first on the list of Monticuliporae given by d’Orbigny (Prodr. de Paléont., p. 25), has the right to be considered as the type of the whole genus.”’ Nicholson described (p. 294— 295) and illustrated (pl. 13, figs. 1-1b) the form which he identified as Monti- culipora (Heterotrypa) mammulata d’Orbigny. It is obvious from Nicholson’s statements on p. 291 and 293 that he intended the subgenus Heterotrypa to be what is now termed the nominate subgenus of Monticulipora, in which case the proper name should have been “‘ Monticulipora (Monticulipora) ” instead of “‘ Monticulipora (Heterotrypa)”’. In any case, at this point, Heterotrypa is a junior objective synonym of Monticulipora (sensu 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Nicholson) as the type-species designated by Nicholson is the same in name and in concept for both generic groups. However, upon comparing the description (p. 294, 295) and illustrations (pl. 13, figs. 1-1b) of the form identified by Nicholson as Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny with the illustrations of d’Orbigny’s type (see Paragraphs 18 and 20, below), it is obvious that Nicholson again misidentified his material. Nicholson’s specimens (called Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) mammulata by him) are not conspecific nor congeneric with Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850, but are congeneric with Monti- culipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850 (the basis of Ulrichian and modern concept of Heterotrypa). 12. Nicholson (1881, On the Structure and Affinities of the Genus Monti- culipora : 101) again stated, concerning the subgenus Heterotrypa : ‘‘ Type of the group, Monticulipora mammulata D’Orb. (which is also the type of the whole genus).”’ Further, he again commented (p. 103) that: “ This section includes many of the most typical and most familiar of the species of Monticulipora, comprising among them the M. mammulata, D’Orb., which, as the species first on the list of Monticuliporae given by d’Orbigny (Prodr. de Paléont., p. 25), has the right to be considered as the type of the whole genus.” Nicholson again described (p. 104-110) and illustrated (pl. 6, figs. 1-1g) the form he identified as ‘‘ Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) mammulata, D’Orb.”’, although he discussed the possibility that he had misidentified his material (p. 108-110). Nicholson again misidentified his material as discussed in Paragraph 11, above. 13. Nicholson (ibid.: 100, 102) established two additional subgeneric groups of Monticulipora, including Monticulipora (Peronopora) Nicholson. He stated (p. 102), concerning the subgeneric group Peronopora: “‘ Type of the group, M. frondosa D’Orb. (= M. decipiens Rom.). Other examples are M. molesta Nich., M. Cincinnatiensis James, and probably M. Ortoni, Nich.” He again cited the type-species of Peronopora (p. 215) as: “ M. frondosa D’Orb., (= M. decipiens Rom.)”’, and described (p. 216-224) and illustrated (figs. 46, 47; pl. 5, figs. 4, 4a, 5, Sa) the material he identified as ‘‘ Monticulipora (Peronopora) frondosa d’Orbigny.” Upon comparison of the illustrations of the type of Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850 (see Paragraph 20, below) and Nicholson’s descriptions and illustrations of the material he assigned to ‘** Monticulipora (Peronopora) frondosa d’Orbigny ”’, it is obvious that Nicholson misidentified his material. The form Nicholson described as M. (P.) frondosa is not conspecific nor congeneric with Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850 (the basis of the Ulrichian and modern concept of Heterotrypa), but it is congeneric with Chaetetes decipiens Rominger, 1866 (the basis of the Ulrichian and modern concept of Peronopora). Nicholson believed that the material he described as M. (P.) frondosa was conspecific with Chaetetes decipiens Rominger as evidenced by his statements on pages 102, 215, 216, and 220-224. In our opinion, the other species originally included in Peronopora by Nicholson are not congeneric with the form he called M. (P.) frondosa or with Chaetetes decipiens Rominger, 1866. 14. Ulrich (1882, J. Cincinn. Soc. nat. Hist. 5 : 130-134), evidently also unaware that d’Orbigny had designated a Jurassic type-species for Monti- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 culipora (see Paragraph 2, above), concurred with Nicholson (see Paragraphs 11 and 12, above) that Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850, should be regarded as the type-species of Monticulipora. He stated (p. 130): “ The first species given under d’Orbigny’s description of his genus Monticulipora, is his M. mammulata, from the Lower Silurian [Upper Ordovician of current usage] of Ohio. This species, must, therefore, be accepted as the type of the genus.” Ulrich maintained (p. 132, 134) that Milne-Edwards and Haime (see Para- graph 4, above) had correctly identified Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850 and M. frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850. Further, Ulrich maintained (p. 124, 130-134) that: (1) the form Nicholson had called Monticulipora (Peronopora) molesta was conspecific with Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny; (2) the form Nicholson had called Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) mammulata was con- specific with Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny; and (3) the form Nicholson had called Monticulipora (Peronopora) frondosa was conspecific with Chaetetes decipiens Rominger. (See Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, above). Finally, Ulrich elevated Peronopora (p. 153) and Heterotrypa (p. 155) to generic rank. Ulrich is correct in his evaluation of Nicholson’s misidentifications, at least on the generic level. Ulrich accepted the name but not the concept of the type- species of Monticulipora as designated by Nicholson (see Paragraph 11, above). 15. Ulrich (1883, J. Cincinn. Soc. nat. Hist. 6 : 83-84) again pointed out (see Paragraph 14, above) that Nicholson had misidentified Monticulipora frondosa dOrbigny, 1850, and had called it Monticulipora mammulata (see Paragraphs 8, 9, 11, and 12). Further, Ulrich claimed (p. 83) that the type- species of Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879, is: “‘ H. frondosa, d’Orb., (H. mam- mulata Nich.). .”’. In contrast to his procedure noted in the Comments under Paragraph 14, above, Ulrich accepted the concept but not the name of the type-species of Heterotrypa designated by Nicholson (see Paragraph 11, above). 16. Waagen and Wentzel (1886, Palaeont. indica (13) 1 (6) : 874) placed Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879, into synonymy with “ Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1850 * and stated: “‘ The name Heterotrypa cannot, we regret to say, be retained, as just the forms comprised under this sub-division must get the name Monti- culipora, if the other sub-divisions are considered as distinct genera.” Waagen and Wentzel correctly pointed out that Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879, was a junior objective synonym of Monticulipora d’Orbigny (sensu Nicholson). 17. Ulrich (1890, Geol. Surv. Illinois 8 : 370, 371) cited the following species as the type-species of their respective genera: Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850, the type-species of Monticulipora d’Orbigny; Monticulipora frondosa d@’Orbigny, 1850, the type-species of Heterotrypa Nicholson; and Chaetetes decipiens Rominger, 1866, the type-species of Peronopora Nicholson. Further, he established (p. 371) the family HETEROTRYPIDAE with the type-genus Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879. Presumably Ulrich cited Chaetetes decipiens Rominger, 1866, as the type- species of Peronopora because of Nicholson’s statements in 1881 (see Paragraph 13 and Comments, above). Almost without exception subsequent authors have adopted the type-species cited above by Ulrich and have used generic concepts 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature based on them. The Ulrichian concept of the type-species (and, hence, to a large extent, the genus) of Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849, differs from the concept of the type-species advanced by Nicholson in 1879. The Ulrichian concept of the type-species of Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879, and Peronopora Nicholson, 1881, are essentially the same as Nicholson’s original concepts. Ulrich adopted the same name for the type-species of Monticulipora as did Nicholson, but not the same name for the type-species of Heterotrypa and Peronopora. 18. Ulrich and Bassler (1904, Smithson. misc. Coll. 47 (1470) : 16, pl. 6, figs. 1-3) illustrated, for the first time, the internal structures of a fragment obtained from the type specimen of Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850. It is obvious, from comparison of the illustrations of the type specimen of Monticulipora mammulata with Nicholson’s descriptions and illustrations (see Paragraphs 8, 9, 11, and 12, above) of the form he called Monticulipora mam- mulata, that Nicholson misidentified his material. 19. Ulrich and Bassler (ibid. : 25) obtained two fragmentary specimens from the type material of Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850, but did not section them. They did, however, section and illustrate (p. 25, pl. 11, figs. 1-3) the internal characters of a fragment of the hypotype of Chaetetes frondosus (d’Orbigny, 1850) illustrated by Milne-Edwards and Haime (see Paragraph 4. above). The form Nicholson identified as Monticulipora mammulata (see Paragraphs 8, 9, 11, and 12, above) is congeneric with the form identified by Milne-Edwards and Haime as Chaetetes frondosus (see Paragraph 4, above) and illustrated by Ulrich and Bassler. We have made cellulose acetate replicas and thin sections of the fragmentary specimens from type material of Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850, obtained by Ulrich and Bassler in 1904 that show it is con- generic and conspecific with the form described by Milne-Edwards and Haime in 1851 as Chaetetes frondosus. 20. Boule and Thevenin (1906, Ann. Paléont. 1) figured the type specimens of Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850 (pl. 8, figs. 10, 11; pl. 9, fig. 1) and Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850 (pl. 9, figs. 9, 10; pl. 10, figs. 1, 2). Monticulipora mammulata dOrbigny, 1850, is a Monticulipora (sensu Ulrich, Ulrich & Bassler, the Commission [see Paragraph 23, below] and modern students). The type specimen figured by Boule and Thevenin, of Monticulipora mammulata is frondose, in contrast to the hypotype figured by Milne-Edwards and Haime (see Paragraph 4, above). Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850, is a Heterotrypa (sensu Nicholson, Ulrich, Ulrich & Bassler and subsequent authors). 21. Bassler (1934, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 24 (9) : 408) proposed the new name Monticuliporella, with the type-species Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850, for Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1850, and subsequent authors because he discovered that d’Orbigny had designated a Jurassic type species for Monti- culipora in 1849 (see Paragraph 2, above, and Paragraphs 22 and 23 below). 22. Bassler and Duncan (1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 (3) : 90-92) petitioned the Commission to set aside all other designations of the type-species sedatih tale eee Fie ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 of Monticulipora, designate Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850, as the type species, and to suppress Monticuliporella Bassler, 1934. 23. The Commission (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl., Opinion 443) designated, under the plenary powers, the nominal species Monticulipora mammulata d’Orbigny, 1850, as the type-species of Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849 and placed Monticuliporella Bassler, 1934, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Monticulipora d’Orbigny, 1849, sensu Ulrich, subsequent authors, and the Commission is not the same in concept as Monticulipora, sensu Nicholson (equals Heterotrypa, sensu Nicholson, Ulrich, and subsequent authors). 24. In view of the above statements and comments and the directive in Article 70 (a), the Commission is hereby asked: (1) to designate Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850, as the type-species of Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879; and (2) to designate Chaetetes decipiens Rominger, 1866, as the type-species of Peronopora Nicholson, 1881. Both of the above species are possibly the nominal species actually involved but wrongly named by Nicholson in the type- designation, as Ulrich believed (see Paragraphs 14 and 15). These species certainly conform to: (1) the usage of the generic names prevailing at the time when Ulrich discovered Nicholson’s misidentifications, and (2) the usage of the generic names by virtually all subsequent authors, up to and including the time when this petition was written and submitted. 25. In order to give effect to the foregoing proposal, the International Commission is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879, and, having done so, to designate Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850, to be the type-species of that genus; (b) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Peronopora Nicholson, 1881, and, having done so, to designate Chaetetes decipiens Rominger, 1866, to be the type-species of that genus; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic _ Names in Zoology: (a) Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850; (b) Peronopora Nicholson, 1881 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Chaetetes decipiens Rominger, 1866; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850, as published in the binomen Monticuli- pora frondosa (type-species of Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879); (b) decipiens Rominger, 1866, as published in the binomen Chaetetes decipiens (type-species of Peronopora Nicholson, 1881). 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Table 1.—Chart showing chronologically the nomenclature applied to the taxonomic concepts of the genera Monticulipora, Heterotrypa, and Peronopora. Frondose or massive | Generally frondose Generally bifoliate Author d’Orbigny, 1850 Milne-Edwards and Haime, 1851 Milne-Edwards and Haime, 1854 Milne-Edwards, 1860 Rominger, 1866 Nicholson, 1874 1875 Nicholson, 1876 Nicholson, 1879 Nicholson, 1881 Ulrich, 1882 Ulrich, 1883 Ulrich, 1890 Ulrich and Bassler, 1904 Boule and Thevenin, 1906 Bassler, 1934 The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- forms with thin walls, minute acanthopores, and cystiphragms (current Monti- culipora concept). forms with relatively thick walls, endocanthopores, diaphragms, and no cystiphragms (current Heterotrypa concept). forms with thick glassy walls, many medium- sized acanthopores and cystiphragms (current Peronopora concept). (Name applied by auth or to specimens conforming to the above concepts) Monticulipora mammulata (new species) Chaetetes mammulatus Monticulipora mammulata Monticulipora mammulata Monticulipora mammulata | Monticulipora frondosa | (new species) Chaetetes frondosus Monticulipora frondosa Chaetetes mammulatus Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) mammulata (new subgenus) Monticulipora (Heterotrypa) mammulata Stated that the material called M. (H.) mammulata by Nicholson was conspecific with Monticulipora | frondosa d’Orbigny Heterotrypa frondosa Heterotrypa frondosa Chaetetes decipiens (new species) Chaetetes frondosus Chaetetes frondosus Monticulipora (Peronopora) frondosa = M. decipiens (Rominger) (new subgenus) Stated that the material called M. (P.) frondosa by Nicholson was conspecific with Chaetetes decipiens Rominger Peronopora decipiens Each species was cited by Ulrich as the type-species of the genus in which it is here included. clature (1957) This paper Monticulipora mammulata Monticulipora mammulata Monticuliporella mammulata (new genus) Monticulipora mammulata Monticulipora mammulata | frondosa Heterotrypa frondosa Monticulipora frondosa Heterotrypa Peronopora decipiens Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 ON THE STATUS OF EPHEMERA FUSCATA LINNAEUS, 1761 (INSECTA, EPHEMEROPTERA). PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE. Z.NAS.) 1620 By Per Brinck (Zoological Institute, University of Lund) and Ingrid Miiller-Liebenau (Limnologische Station Niederrhein, Krefeld-Hiilserberg). In application Z.N.(S.) 1620 Mr. Kimmins has proposed the use of the plenary powers to designate Ephemera fuscata Linnaeus, 1761, to be the type-species of the genus Baetis (Leach, 1815). The proposal is based on S. Bengtsson’s conclusion (Ark. Zool. 7 (36) : 4-5, 1912) that Baetis bioculatus auct. is not conspecific with Ephemera bioculata Linnaeus, 1758, but is in fact Ephemera fuscata S. Bengtsson. There is no reason to reject Bengtsson’s conclusions as accepted by Mr. Kimmins, but to avoid future disturbances it is necessary to fix the status of B. fuscatus by desig- nating a neotype and presenting a sufficiently detailed description of the species. The junior author is revising the genus and it has been found that the taxonomic position of some groups of species, including fuscatus, is very complicated. The description is appended. As was pointed out by Bengtsson (l.c.) and Kimmins (l.c.) there is no typical Linnaean material left. Furthermore, if we accept Bengtsson’s opinion that Ephemera bioculata Linnaeus is conspecific with Ephemera diaphanum Miiller, 1776 (= Centroptilum luteolum auct.), it would be wise to suppress the Linnaean name, since it would cause great confusion to have it transferred to the genus Centroptilum to take precedence over C. luteolum. Therefore, we propose that, in addition to Mr. Kimmins’ application, the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature take the action: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside... . to be the type-species of that genus; (b) to suppress the specific name bioculata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Ephemera bioculata, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology . . . Ephemera fuscata, as interpreted by the neotype designated by Miiller-Liebenau, 1965 (in the Appendix to this paper)... (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Ephemera bioculata Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 577). APPENDIX In der Ephemeropteren-Sammlung Simon Bengtsson’s, die im Entomologischen Museum des Zoologischen Institutes der Universitat Lund, Schweden, aufbewahrt wird, befinden sich mehrere Proben, welche Imagines und Subimagines beider Geschlechter sowie Larven von Baetis fuscatus L. enthalten. Das Material stammt vorwiegend aus Schonen und wurde von Bengtsson in den Jahren 1906-1924 gesam- melt. Bengtsson gibt folgende Fundorte und Daten fiir diese Art an: Skrabean vid Arup, 28.6.1906; Refvinge, 22.9.1906; Skaralid, 11.Juni 1916; Kjeflinge, 12.Juli 1924. Eine dieser Proben, gezeichnet: “‘ Kjeflinge, 12.Juli 1924”, enthalt alle Entwicklungs- stadien von B. fuscatus, und Bengtsson bemerkt auf einem dieser Probe beiliegenden Zettelchen, daB die Imagines im Aquarium aus Larven gezogen wurden. Daher diente dieses Material als Grundlage fiir die folgenden Beschreibungen. Ferner wurden derselben Probe die Neotypen entnommen. Wie friiher erwahnt (Miiller-Liebenau 1964, S. 81), ist das in Bengtsson’s Sammlung enthaltene Material durch die sehr lange Konservierung in Alkohol fast vollig entfarbt, so daB kaum noch Farbungscharaktere zu erkennen sind. Von der Art B. fuscatus liegt jedoch geniigend neueres Material vor, so daB bei den folgenden Beschreibungen Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature hierauf wie auf neuere Literatur (Kimmins, Macan u.a.) im Vergleich mit Bengtsson’s Material Bezug genommen werden kann. BESCHREIBUNG DER NEOTYPE DER ART BAETIS FUSCATUS, (LINNAEUS, 1761) Imago 3: Die K6rpergr6Be des $ betragt 5,5 bis 6,0 mm, die Lange der Cerci etwa 15 bis 16 mm. Thorax und 1.Abdominalsegment des ¢ sind von hellerem bis dunklerem Braun, die Tergite II bis VI weiBlich bis gelblich durchscheinend, Tergite VII bis X braunlich, aber heller als der Thorax; Cerci weiB, Basalglieder schwach grau get6nt—An den Vorderbeinen sind Schenkel, Tibia und Tarsus gleichmaBig schwach grau-braun gefarbt, Mittel- und Hinterbeine weif-braunlich, Tarsalgelenke braunlich—Fligel farblos, Adern weiBlich, manchmal die Langs- und Queradern im Vorderfliigel in der vorderen Fliigelhalfte etwas dunkler. Hinterfliigel (Abb. 1c) mit drei deutlichen Langsadern.—Gonopoden weiB. Die Form der Gonopoden und die GroBenver- haltnisse der einzelnen Glieder zueinander, die einer gewissen natiirlichen Variation unterliegen, zeigen die Abbildungen la und 2. An den distalen inneren Ecken der Basalglieder sind deutliche Vorspriinge zu erkennen. Die Paraproctplatten (Abb. 1a) sind am inneren Hinterrand gleichmaBig abgerundet und fallen nach den AuBenseiten hinter einer deutlichen Ecke schrag ab. Subimago 3: Thorax kastanienbraun; Abdomen oben dunkelgrau, unten ebenfalls grau, aber heller als auf der Oberseite—Schenkel aller Beine griinlich-weiB, Tibien und Tarsen nur wenig dunkler, Tarsalgelenke dunkel. Vorderbeine im ganzen ein wenig dunkler als Mittel- und Hinterbeine—Vorderfliigel grau, Hinterfliigel etwas heller grau. Gonopoden vergl. Abb. 1b. Imago @: K6rpergr6Be wie die des 3. Farbung des 2 (z.T.nach Ulmer 1929) gelbbraun oder dunkel (ruBbraunlich, griinlich ruBfarben oder oliv); Unterseite im ersteren Falle gelb, im letzteren Falle olivfarben und auf jedem Sternit nahe der Basis mit je zwei dunklen Punkten gezeich- net. Diese Punkte sind z.T. aufgelést in einen gr6Beren basalen und einen kleineren caudalen Punkt. Tergite mit je einem basalen, schragliegenden dunklen Strich, dahinter ein dunkler Punkt.—Beine braunlich. Vorderbeine nur wenig dunkler als die Hinterbeine—Paraproctplatten (Abb. 1d) ahnlich wie beim 3, aber die Spitzen an den duBeren Hinterecken etwas starker ausgepragt—Cerci braunlich, manchmal schwach geringelt. Subimago 2°: KO6rperfarbe braunlich, die letzten 2 bis 3 Segmente auf der Oberseite hell, Unter- seite heller als Oberseite—Vorderschenkel aller drei Beinpaare weiBlich; Tibien und Tarsen kaum dunkler als die Schenkel; Tarsalgelenke fast schwarz.—Paraproctplatten vergl. Abb. le.—Cerci braunlich. Larve: Fiir die Beschreibung der Larve von B. fuscatus wurden aus Bengtsson’s Material 6 Larven bzw. Larvenexuvien prapariert und mikroskopisch untersucht. Weitere Prapararate wurden von Larven aus der eigenen Sammlung angefertigt und mit Bengtsson’s Material verglichen. KOrperfarbung: Abb. 3 zeigt eine Larve mit schematischer Darstellung der am meisten hervortretenden Farbungscharaktere dieser Art, die schon mit der Handlupe zu erkennen sind. Je nach Ausfarbungsgrad der Tiere k6nnen Einzelheiten in diesem fiir B. fuscatus sehr typischen Grundmuster mehr oder weniger stark variieren (s.u.). Auf dem Kopf liegt rechts und links der Mittellinie je eine Langsreihe unregelmaBig geformter heller Flecken—Am Vorderrand des Pronotums (Abb. 4a) zieht sich auf der Cervikalhaut ein dunkler Streifen entlang, der von den Seiten her zur Mitte hin schmiler wird. Auf beiden Seiten des Pronotums liegt etwa in der Mitte ein ziemlich groBer heller Fleck, in den von der Innenseite und von vorn her ein gebogener, am Ende dreieckig erweiterter dunkler Streifen hineinragt—Auf den Tergiten II bis VIII Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22 Abt. 1: Baetis fuscatus (L.) (a) J, Gonopoden, ventral. (b) Subimago-3, Gonopoden, ventral. (c) 3, Hinterfliigel. (d) 2, Paraproctplatten, ventral. (e) Subimago-°, Paraproctplatten, ventral. Plate | Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22 Plate 2 Abb. 2: Baetis fuscatus (L.), Gonopoden. Plate 3 ty ll: Cea FAL CE: SsssS SSS Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22 Abb. 3: Baetis fuscatus (L.), Larve. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22 Plate 4 \ < yj) if, Ae ge a ee Abb. 4: Baertis fuscatus (L.), Larve. (a) Pronotum. (b) rechte Halfte des Labrums. (c) Mandibeln. (d) Labialpalpus, Oberseite. (e) Labialpalpus, Unterseite. (f) Para- glossa, Unterseite. (g) Glossa, Unterseite. (h) Maxillarpalpus. (i) Tergit-Oberflache. (j) Paraproctplatte. (k) Vorderbein. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 findet sich jederseits der Mitte auf dunklem Grund ein groBer heller Fleck, haufig in Form eines Dreiecks, dessen eine Spitze zur Mittellinie hinweist. Auf Segment V ist die dunkle Farbung auf den vorderen Rand beschrankt, die hellen Flecken sind weiter ausgedehnt und ohne scharfe Begrenzung, so daB dieses Segment deutlich heller wirkt als die iibrigen. Auf Segment VIII wird der dunkle vordere Anteil nach hinten durch 3 Zipfel begrenzt, von denen der mittlere langer ist als die beiden seitlichen, oder die beiden seitlichen fehlen mehr oder weniger ganz. Auf den mittleren Segmenten ist haufig jederseits der Mittellinie ein kleiner dunkler Fleck vor der mittleren Spitze des hellen Dreiecks starker ausgepragt; bei manchen Tieren ist am Vorderrand der Seg- mente in der Mitte das von Macan (1950) beschriebene “‘ VogelfuBmuster ”’ deutlich erkennbar. Die Segmente IX und X sind oft ganz hell, zuweilen aber auch dunkler gefarbt.—Die Kaudalfilamente sind hell, mit einem deutlichen dunklen Band hinter der Mitte und mit dunklen Spitzen versehen; manchmal ist auch der Basalteil bis zu dem dunklen Band starker oder schwacher braunlich get6nt.—Die Beine sind ebenfalls iiberwiegend hell. Auf den Femora findet sich in der Mitte ein auffallender dunkler Fleck, desgleichen an den Enden von Tibien und Tarsen. Die oben beschriebene Musterung des ganzen Tieres ist sehr charakteristisch. Selbst sehr kleine Larven von B. fuscatus zeigen diese Farbungsmerkmale. Bei Exuvien-Praparaten aus Bengtsson’s Material ist diese Musterung noch schwach zu erkennen. Morphologische Merkmale: Mundteile: Labrum (Abb. 4b): Die Anzahl der Borsten entlang dem Vorderrand betragt jederseits 1 (nahe der Mitte) plus 3-4 (seitlich)—Mandibeln (Abb. 4c): Linke und rechte Mandibel sind mit je 6 groBeren, kraftigen Zahnen und mit einem kleineren Zahn in der Mitte zwischen je drei gr6Beren versehen. Auf der Unterseite der rechten Mandibel ist ein kleinerer Zahn an der Oberkante, etwas zuriickgesetzt, zu erkenne.— Labialpalpen (Abb. 4d und e): Das 3.Glied ist an seiner Innenseite stark gew6lbt und am Rande mit mehreren spitzen Borsten versehen. Die Oberseite des 3.Gliedes tragt nur wenige Borsten nahe dem Vorderrand, seine Unterseite mehrere spitze Borsten und feine Harchen auf der ganzen Flache. Auf der Oberseite des 2.Gliedes stehen meist 4 starkere Sinnesborsten. Der Vorsprung an der Innenseite des 2.Gliedes ist kurz, nur knapp ein Viertel der Basis des 3.Gliedes oder noch weniger—Am Vorderrand der Paraglossa (Abb. 4f) stehen auf der Unterseite 3 Reihen Borsten. Hiervon sind die Borstenmale von nur 2 Reihen zu sehen, wahrend die 3.Reihe auf der vorderen Kante liegt und im mikroskopischen Praparat nur schwer zu erkennen ist.—Die Glossa (Abb. 4g) hat auf der Unterseite mehrere steife Borsten.—Das Endglied des Maxillarpalpus (Abb. 4h) ist asymmetrisch, am Ende zugespitzt und nach innen geneigt. Das Pronotum (Abb. 4a) ist auf seiner Oberflache dicht besetzt mit feinen Borsten, “* Halbmonden ” und kurzen, kegelfO6rmigen ‘‘ hyalinen Schuppen ” (Miiller-Liebenau 1964, S. 82). Die seitlichen Vorderecken des Pronotums sind weit nach vorn ausge- zogen. Vor dem Pronotum liegen auf der Cervikalhaut jederseits der Mitte ein groBeres und ein kleineres Borstenfeld ohne dunklen Untergrund. Die Oberflachen der Tergite (Abb. 4i) sind dicht besetzt mit relativ flachen ** Halbmonden ” und kurzen, breiten, kegelformigen Schuppen. Die Paraproctplatten (Abb. 4j) sind an der Innenkante mit mehreren starken Zacken versehen. Auf der Oberflache finden sich ‘‘ Halbmonde”’, kegelfo6rmige Schuppen, feine Borsten und Sensillae campaniformae, nahe dem Innenrand manchmal vereinzelt dicke, kurze, stumpfe Borsten. Es sind 7 Kiemenpaare vorhanden. Alle Kiemen sind in der distalen Halfte am Rande fein gesagt und mit ein Saum feiner Harchen versehen. Die Beine (Abb. 4k) sind untereinander sehr a4hnlich. Die Oberkante der Femora tragt eine variierende Anzahl kraftiger, keulenfo6rmiger Borsten, die an der Basis dichter stehen als zum Ende hin; am Vorderbein sind es ca. 20 bis 30 solcher Borsten, am Mittel- und Hinterbein um 20. Die Unterkante der Femora ist mit einigen kurzen kraftigen Borsten versehen. Die Oberkanten von Tibien und Tarsen tragen nur sehr 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature kleine kurze Borsten, die Unterkanten langere und kraftigere. Die FuBkrallen sind mit 8 bis lo Zahnen versehen. Die Oberflachen aller drei Beinglieder sind ebenso wie die Tergite dicht mit zahlreichen “* Halbmonden”’, Schuppen und feinen Borsten bedeckt. Aus derselben Probe, deren Material der obigen Beschreibung zugrunde liegt, wurden folgende Neotypen ausgewahlt: (1) Neotypus 3 mit folgender Etikettierung: ** Baetis fuscatus L., Neotypus 3, Sk. Kjeflinge i an, 12.VIT.1924 ”. (2) Alloneotypus 2 mit folgender Etikettierung: “‘ Baetis fuscatus L., Alloneotypus 2, Sk. Kjeflinge i an, 12.VII.1924 ”’. Die Neotypen befinden sich im Entomologischen Museum des Zoologischen Institutes der Universitat Lund. Weitere Imagines und Subimagines beider Geschlechter sowie Larven von B. fuscatus finden sich in Bengtsson’s Sammlung. LITERATUR BENGTSSON, S. 1912. An analysis of the Scandinavian Species of Ephemerida described by older authors. Ark. Zool. 7 : 1-21. Kimmins, D. E. 1954. A revised key to the adults of the British species of Ephe- meroptera. Freshw. Biol. Ass. Sci. Publ. Nr. 15 : 1-71. — 1964. Baetis (Leach, 1815) (Insecta, Ephemeroptera): Proposed Designation of a Type-Species under the Plenary Powers. Z.N.(S.) 1620. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21, Part 2 : 146-147. LINNAEUS, C., 1758: Systema Naturae, Ed. 10. Macan, T. T. 1950. Descriptions of some Nymphs of the British Species of the Genus Baetis (Ephem.). Trans. Soc. Brit. Ent. 10 : 143-166. MULLER-LIEBENAU, I. 1964. Revision der von Simon Bengtsson aufgestellten Baetis-Arten (Ephemeroptera). Opusc. Ent. 30 : 79-123. Umer, G. 1929. Eintagsfliegen (Ephemeroptera (Agnatha)). In: Brohmer, Ehrmann, Ulmer: Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas. 4/II1 : 1-43. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF MIRIDAE HAHN, 1833 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA) Z.N.(S.) 1090 (see vol. 21, pages 263-267) By Dennis Leston (Bedford, England) I am in complete agreement with the proposals made by Kerzhner and Trjapitzin under the file reference cited above. The case for conservation of the family-group name Miridae within Heteroptera is overwhelming if current usage is considered the prime criterion. The past 25 or so years has seen this name stabilised in usage whilst Capsidae has quite vanished. There are nearly 40 genera of pest species within the family and these have occasioned a considerable literature on identification, bionomics and control. Grasslands, lucernes and clovers, potatoes, citrus fruits, apples and pears, coffee, cocoa, tea, carrots—all have mirid pests in some part or other of their range, with a consequent local issue of agricultural bulletins, leaflets and circulars which use the name Miridae. In addition there is a small horticultural literature. In the non-applied fields the various national or supranational catalogues, lists and faunas all use Miridae as a Family-group name within Heteroptera: examples include Carvalho, 1957-60, Catalogo dos Mirideos do Mundo, Rio de Janeiro; Knight, 1941, The plant-bugs, or Miridae, of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.; Southwood and Leston, 1959, Land and water bugs of the British Isles, London; Stichel, 1957-62, I/lustrierte Bestimmung- stabellen der Wanzen, Berlin; Wagner, 1952, Blindwanzen oder Miriden (Die Tierwelt Deutschlands), Jena; Kirichenko, 1951, Nastoyashchie Poluzhestkokrylye Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR (Hemiptera) (Fauna of the U.S.S.R. No. 42), Moscow; Kerzhner and Jaczewski, 1964, Otrad Hemptera (Heteroptera)—Poluzhestkokrylye, ili Klopy (Opred. Nasek. Evrop. Chast, SSSR No. 1), Moscow. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 Table 1—A list of genera of Miridae (Heteroptera) which include species of economic importance (based on Leston, 1961, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 137 : 89-106; with additions). Adelphocoris Reuter, 1896 Lygus Hahn, 1833 Bryocoropsis Schumacher, 1917 Macrolophus Fieber, 1858 Calocoris Fieber, 1858 Megacoelum Fieber, 1858 Campylomma Reuter, 1878 Mertila Distant, 1904 Chamus Distant, 1904 Monalonion Herrich-Schaffer, 1850 Collaria Provancher, 1872 Neurocolpus Reuter, 1876 Creontiades Distant, 1883 Odoniella Haglund, 1895 Cyrtopeltis Fieber, 1860 Orthops Fieber, 1858 Dionconotus Reuter, 1894 Pachypeltis Signoret, 1858 Distantiella China, 1944 Parachamus Schouteden, 1946 Halticus Hahn, 1829 Platyngomiriodes Ghauri, 1963 Helopeltis Signoret, 1858 Plesiocoris Fieber, 1860 Horcias Distant, 1844 Psallus Fieber, 1858 sens. lat. Hyalopeplus Stal, 1870 Pseudodoniella China & Carvalho, 1951 Leptopterna Fieber, 1858 Ragmus Distant, 1910 Lycidocoris Reuter & Poppius, 1911 Sahlbergella Haglund, 1895 Lygidea Reuter, 1875 Taylorilygus Leston, 1952 Lygidolon Reuter, 1907 Tenthecoris Scott, 1886 Lygocoris Reuter, 1875 Faunistic papers on the near east by Hoberlandt, Linnavuori and Seidenstiicker, by Odhiambo on East Africa, by Wagner, Kerzhner, Remane on the Palaearctic, by Moore on the Nearctic and by many other contemporary hemipterists use the name Miridae. Recently there have appeared contributions on the physiology of feeding and digestion by Flemion, Goodchild, Miles, Nuorteva and others; on ecology by Southwood, Dempster, Waloff and other workers; on morphology or cytology by Carayon, Davies, Leston, etc.—all use Miridae as a name within Heteroptera. To sum up; it would not be difficult to list a thousand or more papers on Miridae written within the past dozen years: to have a name for the family other than the current one would cause inconvenience to systematists, physiologists, morphologists, ecolo- gists, cytologists, applied entomologists and general zoologists. I therefore support the application to place Miridae Hahn, 1833 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, together with the applications re the concerned generic and specific names. By G. J. Kerrich (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) Commissioner Henning Lemche, with assistance from the chalcidoid specialist O. Bakkendorf, has based formal proposals on my published comment on this question, and with these I am in full agreement. I have to add that my objection to TETRACNEMINI Howard, 1892, is reinforced by the following. At the time of writing I overlooked that Erdds (1955) placed Masia Mercet, 1919, in synonymy with Tetracladia Howard, 1892, which later was shown by Graham (1959) to be synonymus with Tetracnemus Westwood 1837. Previous authors, notably Mercet (1921), had placed both Tetracladia and Masia very distantly from genera considered to belong to the ECTROMINI Ashmead. Having now for the first time examined two female specimens of Tetracnemus, determined as Masia, 1 believe that this genus should be placed in the EcrRoMINI Ashmead. This genus is still very little known and the association of the sexes remains to be confirmed by rearing. By contrast the genus Bothriothorax Ratzeburg, 1844, is well understood, and I do not consider that the suitability of BOTHRIOTHORACINI Howard 1895 for MIRINI Ashmead can be called in question. 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature By B. D. Burks (Entomology Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Departinent of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.) I have read the proposal by Kerzhner and Trjapitzin on the proposed suppression of Mirini (Hymenoptera, Encyrtidae) in favor of Miridae and Mirini (Heteroptera), in B.Z.N., v. 21, no. 4, Oct. 1964. Although I realize that inappropriateness is not a valid legal basis for the rejection of a zoological name, I have always felt that Mirini as the name of the largest tribe of Encyrtidae is highly inappropriate. I would be glad to see it eliminated from the classification. It is based on an aberrant genus that is not at all representative of the tribe of Encyrtidae that takes its name fromit. I have long thought that the eventual classification of the Encyrtidae would limit the tribal name Mirini to at best a very small number of genera of unusual structure, the bulk of the present mirine genera going into other tribes of more homogeneous composition. I agree with Kerrich that the present encyrtid tribe Mirini may well take the name Bothriothoracini Howard, 1895. It is just as well to realize, however, that even this name may have a relatively short period of usefulness. Workers in other fields may not be aware that Ashmead’s classification of the Chalcidoidea is at present being rapidly eroded. It is certain to be entirely discarded in the forseeable future. That being the case, it is not possible to make any sort of strong argument for the retention of a part of it. By H. Compere (University of California, Riverside, California, U.S.A.) A separate of Kerzhner’s and Trjapitzin’s application has just been received. Iam impressed with the scholarship. It seems to me it would be a waste of time and effort for hymenopterists to attempt to oppose the hemipterists’ claim to the use of MIRINI. In my opinion the loss of the MiRINI to the hemipterists will not seriously handicap the hymenopterists. I suspect that in a perfected classification the group we know as MIRINI Will be subdivided. Its present makeup is to heterogenous. It contains numerous groups of closely related genera that may eventually be classified as tribes. I suspect that in a final classification DICELLOCERATINI may be very appropriate if limited to a small group of closely related genera. In this perfected classification that I see in my mind’s eye, the ENCYRTINI will be elevated to the ENCYRTINAE even though this imaginary subfamily may not contain more than Encyrtus and Aethognathus. In the meantime if need be I can use DICELLOCERATINI as a catchall in place of MIRINI. By D. P. Annecke (Plant Protection Research Unit, Pretoria, South Africa) I wish to communicate to you my support for the view that the hymenopterists’ use of mirINI Ashmead should stand down in favour of the heteropterists’ use of MIRIDAE Hahn. Being a well known family-group name, the latter, in my opinion, should stand, and a replacement for MIRINI should be found. I am not happy with DICELLOCERATINI, aS proposed by Kerzhner and Trjapitzin, nor with their interpretation of “‘ the principle of Article 40 ” according to which they form the replacement name from one of the objective synonyms of Mira. I should prefer the adoption of BOTHRIOTHORACINI Howard, as proposed by G. J. Kerrich, in view of the fact that confusion has surrounded the application of the earlier name, TETRACNEMINI Howard. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) Apparently, Kerzhner and Trjapitzin have overlooked the earlier names TETRACNEMINI Howard, 1892 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 15 : 361) and BOTHRIOTHORACINI Howard, 1895 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 17 : 605), both of which—as pointed out by Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 Kerrich in his comment—are for the moment available for the tribus MiRINI Ashmead, 1900 and even have priority. Kerrich expresses grave objections to the earliest name, Tetracnemus Westwood, 1837, having been so much confused that it is unsuitable as a basis for a family-group name. BOTHRIOTHORACINI, however, is available and un- ambiguous. It is based on Bothriothorax Ratzeburg, 1844 (Jchneum. Forstins. 1 : 208) with the type by monotypy Bothriothorax altensteinii Ratzeburg, 1844, a junior synonym of Encyrtus clavicornis Dalman, 1820 (K. svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Handl. f. 1820 : 161).* Leaving aside the not yet fully elucidated problems of the ECTROMINI, for which a separate application ought to be presented in due time, I shall attempt here to turn Kerrich’s ideas into formal proposals so that they may be voted on. (I am indebted to Mr. Bakkendorf of our museum for assistance in looking up the necessary refer- ences. He, as a specialist in the group concerned, has asked me to explain his agree- ment with the proposals here made.) It is proposed that the Commission shall (1) under the plenary powers reject for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the family group name TETRACNEMINI Howard, 1892, type-genus Tetracnemus Westwood, 1837. (2) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the names (a) MIRIDAE (correction by Dohrn, 1859 of mrripEs) Hahn, 1833 (type-genus Miris Fabricius, 1794); (b) BOTHRIOTHORACINI Howard, 1895 (type-genus Bothriothorax Ratzeburg, (3) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the names (a) Miris Fabricius, 1794 (gender masculine), type-species by designation by Latreille, 1810, Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Mira Schellenberg, 1803 (gender feminine), type-species by monotypy Mira macrocera Schellenberg, 1803; (c) Bothriothorax Ratzeburg, 1844 (gender masculine), type-species by monotypy Bothriothorax altensteinii Ratzeburg, 1844. (4) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names (a) striatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex striatus (type-species of Miris Fabricius, 1794); (b) macrocera Schellenberg, 1803 as published in the binomen Mira macrocera, (type-species of Mira Schellenberg, 1803); (c) clavicornis Dalman, 1820, as published in the binomen Encyrtus clavi- cornis [the oldest available name for Bothriothorax altensteinii Ratzeburg, 1844, type-species of Bothriothorax Ratzeburg, 1844 and identified by the neotype selected above]. (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the names (a) TETRACNEMINI Howard, 1892 (type-genus Tetracnemus Westwood, 1837)—an ambiguous name suppressed under (1) above; (b) mirRINI Ashmead, 1900 (type-genus Mira Schellenberg, 1803)—a junior homonym of miRIDAE Hahn, 1833, as corrected from MIRIDES by Dohrn, 1859; (c) MIRIDIDAE Timberlake, 1962 (type-genus Miris Fabricius, 1794)—an incorrect spelling for MIRIDAE. By T. Jaczewski Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) _I wish to give full support to the application by I. M. Kerzhner and V. A. Trjapitzin (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 263-267) concerning the validation of the generic * The holotype of the former species has been lost, and its interpretation has sometimes been disputed. In order to settle the question once and for ever in the manner described by Graham (1959—Entom. Tidsskr. 79 : 163) who maintains the identity of the two species, I hereby select the type specimen of Encyrtus clavicornis Dalman, 1820, as selected by Graham (1959 : 162) to be the neotype of Bothriothorax altensteinii Ratzeburg, 1844. 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature name Miris Fabricius, 1794, type-species Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758, and of the family-group name MiRIDAE based on this generic name, but I find that the above application requires several corrections and additions in view of the following facts. 2. The first author who restricted the application of the generic name Méiris Fabricius, 1794, to a more limited group of species, viz. to species of the present tribe STENODEMINI, seems to have been Fallén in 1807 (Mon. Cimicum Svec.: 8, 9, 22, 25, 78, 106-113). It is of some interest to note that Fallén was decidedly of the opinion (op. cit.: 9, 22, 25, 78) that Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758, had to be removed from Miris Fabricius, 1794, to Lygaeus Fabricius, 1794, and placed the species in question in the latter genus stating expressis verbis (op. cit.: 78) “* habitum Miris non habet ”. Fallén left in Miris Fabricius, 1794, only one species not belonging to the present STENODEMINI, viz. Cimex ferus Linnaeus, 1758=Nabis ferus (Linnaeus, 1758). 3. This restriction by Fallén of the scope of Miris Fabricius, 1794, not backed, unfortunately, by a formal type selection, was completely overlooked by Latreille who in 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins.: 433) selected, most deplorably, just Miris striatus: Fabricius, 1794=Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species of Miris Fabricius. Nevertheless, this type fixation by Latreille is perfectly valid, al- though contrary to Recommendation 69B (3) of the present International Code. 4. The above restriction by Fallén of the scope of Miris Fabricius, 1794, has been followed in general by most subsequent authors during the greater part of the XIXth century, including Hahn and Herrich-Schaeffer (Wanzen. Ins. 1-3, 1831-1835) and the generic name Miris became finally limited by Spinola in 1837 (Essai Genres Ins. Ordre Hémipt., Génes: 186-187) to include only the species of the present genus Stenodema Laporte, [1833]; Spinola quotes the latter generic name as a synonym of his Miris. No type-species seems ever to have been fixed for Miris Spinola, 1837, nec Fabricius, 1794, but Stenodema Laporte, [1833], has the type-species, by original monotypy, Cimex virens Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 730). 5. Just as Fallén, Hahn (1834, op. cit. 2 : 134-135, 142, pl. LXXI, fig. 219) removed Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758, from his genus Miris and placed it in the genus Phytocoris Fallén, 1814, leaving under Miris several species of STENODEMINI. In 1831 and 1833, Hahn (op. cit. 1 : 15, 234, p. II, fig. 8) described under Miris only one species, Miris dentata Hahn, 1831, synonymizing it in 1833 (op. cit. 1 : 234) with Miris calcaratus Fallén, 1807. On the same page (Joc. cit.: 234) Hahn established the family-group name MirRIDES, which is derived thus not from Miris Fabricius, 1794, type-species Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758, but from Méiris Spinola, 1837, nec Fabricius, 1794, type-species Cimex virens Linnaeus, 1767, or even from Miris Hahn, 1831, nec Fabricius, 1794, type-species Miris calcaratus Fallén, 1807. 6. In 1838 Curtis (Brit. Ent. 15 : 701) and in 1840 Westwood (/ntrod. mod. Classif. Ins. 2, Synopsis Gen.: 122) designated as type-species for Miris Fabricius, 1794, Cimex dolobratus Linnaeus, 1758. These designations are invalid being antedated by that by Latreille in 1810. 7. The valid generic name for Miris Hahn, 1831, nec Fabricius, 1794, is Brachystira Fieber, 1858 (Wiener Ent. Monatschr. 2 : 301), type-species, by original monotypy, Miris calcaratus Fallén, 1807 (op. cit.: 110-111). The valid generic name for Miris Spinola, 1837, nec Fabricius, 1794, is Stenodema Laporte, [1833] (Essai Class. syst. Hémipt. [1832]: 36-40), type-species, by original monotypy, Cimex virens Linnaeus, 1767 (op. cit.: 730). The valid generic name for Miris Curtis, 1838, nec Fabricius, 1794, is Leptopterna Fieber, 1858 (op. cit.: 302), type-species, by original monotypy, Cimex dolobratus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 449). 8. Apart from the family-group name miripes Hahn, [1833], derived, strictly speaking, from Miris Hahn, 1831, nec Fabricius, 1794, family-group names have been based on Miris Spinola, 1837, and on Miris Curtis, 1838. The oldest family-group name based on Miris Spinola, 1837, seems to be MIRIDAE Dohrn, 1859 (Hemipt.: 37), the oldest family-group name based on Miris Curtis, 1838—miripes Gorski, 1852 (Analecta ad Entomographian Provinciatum Occidentali-Mendionalium Inperii Rossicci £2.25): Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 9. The oldest family-group name derived from Miris Fabricius, 1794, type-species Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758, is MIRIDAE China, 1943 (Gen. Names Brit. Ins. 8 : 255, 296). 10. The family-group name STENODEMINI China, 1943 (op. cit.: 262) is derived from the generic name Stenodema Laporte, [1833]. 11. The opinion that Fabricius fixed type-species of his genera by giving an extended generic characteristic after the description of the species in question, an opinion fairly widespread among hemipterologists towards the end of the XIXth century and at the beginning of the XXth, supported in particular by such eminent workers as Reuter and Kirkaldy, is of no practical importance in this case since the Fabrician “* type-species ” for Miris Fabricius, 1794, Cimex dolobratus Linnaeus, 1758, has been subsequently formally selected as type-species for the genus by Curtis in 1838 and Westwood in 1840. 12. Since the recalling by China in 1943 that the first valid type selection for Miris Fabricius, 1794, was that made by Latreille in 1810, and that accordingly the type- species for that genus is Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758, this fact has been generally accepted in hemipterological practice and corresponding nomenclature has been adopted in a number of recent fundamental publications dealing with the Heteroptera in general or with the MIRIDAE in particular, such as: Carvalho, On the Major Classi- fication of the MiRIDAE (Hemiptera), An. Ac. Bras. Cienc., Rio de Janeiro, 24, 1952; Wagner Blindwanzen oder Miriden, Tierwe/t Deutschlands, 41, Jena, 1952; Stichel, Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen, 11, Europa, 2, Berlin-Hermsdorf, 1956— 1958; Southwood & Leston, Land and Water Bugs of the British Isles, London, 1959; Kerzhner & Jaczewski, Hemiptera (Heteroptera), Opredelitel nasekomykh Yevropeyskoy tshasti SSSR, 1, Moskva—Leningrad, 1964; etc. 13. Inconnection with the present case some obviously misspelt generic and family- group names should be as well placed on the appropriate Official Indexes. 14. In accordance with the above I propose to modify para. 14 of the application of I. M. Kerzhner and V. A. Tryapitsin in the following way and to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (not being a specialist in Hymenoptera I leave aside the points dealing with names in that order of insects): (1) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Miris Fabricius, 1794 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Latreille, 1810, Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Stenodema Laporte, [1833] (gender : neuter), type-species, by original monotypy, Cimex virens Linnaeus, 1767; (c) Brachystira Fieber, 1858 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original monotypy, Miris calcaratus Fallén, 1807; (d) Leptopterna Fieber, 1858 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original monotypy, Cimex dolobratus Linnaeus, 1758; (e) Mira etc.... (2) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Miris Spinola, 1837 (a junior homonym of Miris Fabricius, 1794); (b) Miris Hahn, 1831 (a junior homonym of Miris Fabricius, 1794); (c) Miris Curtis, 1838 (a junior homonym of Miris Fabricius, 1794); (d) Myris Hahn, 1834 (op. cit. 2 : 73) (an incorrect spelling for Miris Hahn, 1831); (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) striatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex striatus (type- species of Miris Fabricius, 1794); (b) virens Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Cimex virens (type- species or Stenodema Laporte, [1833]); (c) calcaratus Fallén, 1807, as published in-the binomen Miris calcaratus (type-species of Brachystira Fieber, 1858); 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (d) dolobratus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex dolobratus (type-species of Lepropterna Fieber, 1858); (e) macrocera etc.... (4) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) MIRIDAE China, 1943 (type-genus Miris Fabricius, 1794) with a ruling that in accordance with Art. 40 (b) of the code it takes the date 1822 and is to be considered a senior subjective synonym and homonym of MIRIDES Hahn, [1833]; (b) BOTHRIOTHORACINI etc... . (c) STENODEMINI China, 1943 (type-genus Stenodema Laporte, [1833]); (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) MirtDES Hahn, [1833] (derived from the rejected and invalid type-genus Miris Hahn, 1831); (b) MIRIDAE Gorski, 1852 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-genus Miris Curtis, 1838); (c) MIRIDAE Dohrn, 1859 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-genus Miris Spinola, 1837); (d) MYRIDINA Berg, 1879 (Hemipt. Argent.: 117) (an incorrect spelling for MIRINAE Dohrn, 1859); (e) MININAE Cockerell, 1893 (Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 20 : 363) (an incorrect spelling for MIRINAE Dohrn, 1859); (f) mMirint Ashmead, 1900... . (g) MIRIDIDAE Timberlake, 1962 (an incorrect spelling for MIRIDAE China, 1943). By I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad). In my joint comments with V. A. Triapitzin ‘“‘On the homonymy of the family name MIRIDAE Hahn, 1833 (Insecta, Heteroptera) and the tribal name MIRINI Ashmead, 1900 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Bull. Zool. Nomen., 21, 1964 : 263-267) we have failed to take into account that Hahn, who described the family mrriDAE, did not interpret the genus Miris as it is accepted at present. Miris Hahn corresponds to the tribe STENO- DEMINI China (MIRINI Hahn), and at present the name Miris Fabricius is applied to the genus of the tribe MiRINI sensu China, 1943 (capsINiI Burmeister, 1835). Prof. T. L. Jaczewski has drawn attention to this discrepancy and made valuable comments and criticisms of the original text of the application, as required under Articles 41, 65(b) of the Code. I would like to dwell in more detail on the possible ways of the solution of this problem and on various positive and negative consequences. There are three possible ways to solve the problem given below. A. Prof. T. L. Jaczewski notes that the name MIRIDAE China, should be placed on the ‘‘ Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’, because China (1943, Generic Names Brit. Ins., 8 : 255, 296) was the first author who used the name MIRIDAE based on Miris with the type-species Cimex striatus Linnaeus. The above decision follows from the recognition of Cimex striatus as type-species. Unfortunately, MIRIDAE, MIRINAE and MIRINI China, 1943, would be junior homo- nyms of MIRIDAE, MIRINAE and MIRINI Hahn, 1833, respectively, and the first two names would be at the same time subjective synonyms of the corresponding Hahn names. Even if Hahn’s names and their subsequent usages are invalid because of the “* mis- identification ” of type-genus, nevertheless the family MrRIDAE will contain more than 70 other family-group names given before 1943 and having priority over MIRIDAE China, 1943. To provide the validity of MiRIDAE China, 1943, Prof. T. L. Jaczewski suggests accepting 1833 as the year of description of MIRIDAE China (by analogy with the procedure given in the Article 40(b) although in the strict sense this Article does not apply to such cases), i.e. the acceptance in the future of writing MIRIDAE (China, 1943) 1833. “se a ae oOo Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129 The disadvantages of such extended application of Article 40(b) are as follows: (1) the alteration of the well known authorship of the family name; (2) complex dating of this name; (3) validation of a name in spite of the common usage of the Laws of Priority and Homonymy; (4) invalidation of all usages of the name MIRIDAE before 1943. Such a complex situation in the greatest and economically most important family of Heteroptera could be a cause of difficulties and confusion for specialists, biblio- graphers etc. and is therefore undesirable. However, one may object that the applica- tion of the procedure given in Article 40(b) can make names with a complex dating more or less common in the nomenclature, and that the authorship of the family-group names is not of great importance (see Appendix E9 of the Code). B. By the application of Article 70(a) (iii) the Commission would be able to rule that the genus, named by Hahn, i.e. Miris Fabricius, regardless of the ‘‘ misidentifica- tion’ of Hahn is a type-genus of MIRIDAE Hahn, 1833. Such a decision of the Commission would fix the generally accepted position in modern literature, where the name MIRIDAE is attributed to Hahn, 1833 and the genus Miris is interpreted sensu China, 1943. Such conservation of status quo though not quite logical, is convenient because in this case no changes in the current nomenclature and accepted authorship are introduced. Such a decision, however, would invalidate all usages of MIRIDAE before 1943, at least as a tribal name, excluding only that of Hahn, 1833. The more important names, which would be validated by such a decision are given in the above mentioned comments of Kerzhner and Trjapitzin and additional names for validation or suppression are given in the comments of Jaczewski. If alternatives A or B are chosen, an undesirable situation with respect to the name of the tribe STENODEMINI China, 1943, arises. There is a very small allied tribe PITHANINI Douglas and Scott, 1865. Kelton (1959, Male Genitalia as Taxonomic Characters in the MIRIDAE. Canad. Ent., suppl. 11: 11, 14) has shown, that it is impossible to find precise distinctions in external characters, male genitalia and biology between PITHANINI and STENODEMINI. If both tribes are united, PITHANINI will have priority over STENODEMINI. Perhaps if alternatives A or B are selected it is expedient to place also the name STENODEMINI on the “ Official List of the Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ as was suggested by Prof. T. L. Jaczewski. C. The problem can be solved by the application of Article 70(a) (i) of the Code by alteration of the type-species of the genus Miris Fabricius. In this case we must return to Hahn’s conception of the genus, which with certain deviations was accepted in literature from 1807-1943. 1. Fabricius (1794, Ent. syst., 4: 215) indicates in the description of the genus Miris: ““ corpus parvum, elongatum, angustum’”’. This characteristic fits best of all the tribe STENODEMINI though it more or less satisfies single representatives of other tribes. Fabricius referred 16 species to the genus Miris, species of the tribe sTENO- DEMINI being given under following numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. STENODEMINI is the largest of the small homogenous groups included in Miris in the original description. The first species mentioned by Fabricius, Miris dolabratus (Linnaeus, 1758) was provided with a more extended description, including in full brief generic diagnosis, set up in large print. Many eminent hemipterists and nomenclaturists at the end of XIXth-the beginning of XXth century (Reuter, 1888, Revisio synonymic Heteropterorum palaearcticorum quae descripserunt auctores vetustioribus, Helsingfors: 29, 243; Kirkaldy, 1906, List of the pagiopodous Heteroptera with their type-species. . .Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., 32, 2: 143; Oschanin, 1912, Katalog der paladarktischen Hemipteren, Berlin: 70; Van Duzee, 1917, Catalogue Hemipt. Amer. north of Mexico, Ithaca: 300) regarded such acts of Fabricius as a fixation of type-species and considered that Fabricius himself fixed M. dolabratus as type-species of Miris. According to the Code such “ distinction ’ of M. dolabratus is not a valid fixation. It should be also noted that species generally accepted now as the type-species for a number of genera of Heteroptera are not the ones distinguished by Fabricius and in exceptional cases Fabricius himself was not consistent in his distinction. It is clear, 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature however, that on limitation of the extent of the genus Miris this name had to be re- served for the tribe STENODEMINI, especially for Miris dolabratus. The species Miris striatus (Linnaeus, 1758), accepted now as a type-species of the genus Miris, was given under the number 14 in the original description by Fabricius. 2. In limiting the extent of the genus Miris Fallén (1807, Monogr. Cimic. Svec.: 8 etc.), according to the diagnosis and various “ indications ” of Fabricius, left only species of the tribe STENODEMINI (with one exception), including M. dolabratus, and excluded M. striatus from this genus. 3. Latreille (1804, Hist. Nat. Crust. Ins., 12 : 221; 1807, Genera Crust. Ins., 3 : 124) interpreted the genus Miris considerably more widely than Fabricius and included in it many species, in which the form of the body did not correspond to the original generic diagnosis. In 1810, Latreille (Consid. gen. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins.: 421-444) published ‘“* Table des genres avec l’indication de l’espece qui leur sert le type”. It is supposed to be the first entomological work in which the word “‘ type” was used. The types of Latreille were more likely examples used to demonstrate the correlation between his genera and those of Fabricius. Principles of fixation of the type-species by Latreille were at variance with the recent nomenclatorial practice as many of his fixations are invalid. Specialists on Coleoptera for example prefer to ignore many fixations of Latreille since their usage may result at present in a change of tens of well known generic names of beetles (Jablokoff-Khnzorian, 1962, Die Gattungstypen von Latreille. Rovart. Kézlem. (Folia Ent. Hung.), 15 (22) : 419-426). On the page 433 in the “‘ Table ’’ mentioned Latreille wrote: “‘ Miris. Miris striatus Fab.1; et quelques especes de ses genres: salda, lygaeus”’. Though the fixation is made in a rather ambiguous phrase it can be admitted formally valid since the only one binominal name is mentioned (see also Direction 4 of the Commission). The fixation of Latreille contradicts Recommendations 69B (3), (6), (7), (12) of the Code, i.e. all recommendations, which may be applied in a given case. Besides, a species satisfying the original generic diagnosis less than did the other species, was selected as type. The weak fixation by Latreille had been used by nobody up to 1943, though it was paid attention to as far back as 1917 by Van Duzee (Joc. cit.). 4. Curtis (1938, British Entomology, 15 : 701) and subsequently Westwood (1840, Introd. Modern Classif. Ins., 2, Synopsis of the Genera: 122) designated as type-species of Miris the species Cimex dolabratus. It was made in full agreement with original diagnosis of Fabricius and was in line with the recommendations of the present Code, except Recommendation 69B (3), since up to this time Herrich-Schaeffer (1835, Nomenclator Ent., 1 : 47; 1836, Wanzen. Ins.,3 : 45, figs. 261, 262) had already referred Cimex dolabratus to the genus Lopus Hahn, 1831, and Burmeister (1835, Handb. d. Ent., 2 : 267) to the genus Phytocoris Fallén, 1814. 5. The work of Hahn (1831-1835, Wanzen. Ins., 1-3) consists of descriptions and illustrations of new and previously described species and genera without definite syste- matic order. It includes isolated descriptions of species and generic reviews, entitled ““ Kennzeichen der Gattung. . .” In the first part of the first volume, containing only descriptions of new genera and species, Hahn described only one species of Miris, which he regarded at that time as new, namely Miris dentatus Hahn (1831, op. cit., 1:15). The family name miripes was proposed by Hahn ([1833], op. cit., 1 : 234) in the systematic index to the first volume and naturally only one species, described in this volume, namely Miris calcaratus Fallén (=dentatus Hahn) was cited under the genus Miris. On the same page Hahn indicated, that the review of the genus Miris would be given later. In the second volume of the work (1834, op. cit., 2 : 73-80) Hahn gave a review of the genus Miris and described a further five species, including Miris dolabratus, which he referred to the first (!) group of the species (erroneously named ‘“‘ Familie’). Afterwards Hahn (1834-1835, op. cit., 2: 119, 135) described in the genus Miris two more species. In all Miris Hahn, 1831-1835, contains eight 1J—n that period (partly by Fabricius too) there was confusion between Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758, and C. striatus: Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 [= Homodemus M-flavum (Goeze, 1778)]. What species Latreille really meant under the name Miris striatus is not known to me. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131 species, of which seven belong to the various recent genera of STENODEMINI. On the other hand, all representatives of this tribe, mentioned in the work, are referred by Hahn to the genus Miris. It is clear from the above, that Hahn’s concept of Miris corresponds to the tribe STENODEMINI and, as it includes M. dolabratus, does not contradict the later fixation of the type-species of Miris by Curtis. If it is so, then MIRIDES Hahn, 1833 =mMiripDEs Gorski, 1852 (the latter is the first name expressly based on Miris Curtis). Prof. T. L. Jaczewski is of the opinion that Article 69 (a) (i) should be applied to Miris Hahn, 1833, for selection of its type-species. Ifso, then we come to the mistaken conclusion, that Hahn regarded his new species as the only member of the well known genus Miris. Article 69 (a) (i) refers however only to “ newly established nominal genera ”’ but not to future interpretations. It follows from the above, that it is not necessary to use the ruling of this Article for Miris Hahn, especially considering the peculiarities of Hahn’s work. By this solution it is not necessary to fix the type of Miris Hahn. The validation of MmRIDAE Gorski, 1852, instead of MIRIDAE Hahn, 1833, as well as the validation of MIRIDAE China, 1943, will have the same difficulties and inconveni- ences, because MIRIDAE Gorski is a junior homonym and in any event a synonym (as tribal name too!) of MIRIDAE Hahn. In addition, it is a junior subjective synonym of CAPSIDAE Burmeister (1835, Handb. d. Ent., 2 : 263, as CAPSINI). 6. Spinola (1837, Essai Hemipt.: 186) was the first to synonymise Stenodema Laporte, [1833], with Miris Fabricius. He noted, that, according to the original description, the name Miris should be applied only for the group of species having a long, narrow body, i.e. for STENODEMINI. Four species referable to two recent genera of STENODEMINI were given by him as examples of the genus Miris, but by means of “etc. ’’ he showed, that these examples do not limit the extent of the genus. Out of four mentioned species three refer to the genus Stenodema. The position of Cimex dolabratus was not indicated by Spinola. Fieber (1858, Wien. Ent. Monatschr.: 301; 1860-1861, Europ. Hemipt.: 239-241) limited the extent of the genus Miris to two-three species of the recent subgenus Stenodema s. str., but not including the type-species of Stenodema—S. virens. Such restriction of Miris was admitted by none of Fieber’s contemporaries. Reuter (1875, Bihang Kongl. Svensk. Vetensk. Akad. Handl., 3 : 8) was the first whose conception of the genus Miris corresponded in full to the recent accepted volume of the genus Stenodema. Miraria Reuter, (1875, loc. cit.) was the first name based on Miris Reuter, 1875. Hahn, Spinola, Fieber and Reuter (1875) did not fix the type-species of Miris. 7. The history of the interpretations of the genus Miris in the basic literature can be presented in following way: (a) From 1807—1858—approximately to the extent of the tribe sSTENODEMINI. (b) From 1858—-1875—as a part of the genus Stenodema or as part of the tribe STENODEMINI. (c) From 1875-1888—as a senior synonym of Stenodema and according to the present extent of the last genus. (d) In 1888, Reuter (/oc. cit.) took the *‘ distinction ’ of Fabricius as the fixation of Cimex dolabratus as a type-species of Miris. From 1888-1943 the name Reine Fabricius, 1794, was used as a senior synonym of Leptopterna Fieber, 1858. (e) In 1943, China (/oc. cit.) drew attention to the important fact that the generally accepted at that time “ fixation’ of Fabricius is invalid and the first valid fixation is that of Latreille (1810). Having accepted the formally valid (Opinion 11), but very poor Latreille fixation, China changed CaAPsINi Bur- meister, 1835, into MiRINI Hahn, 1833, established a new tribe STENODEMINI for MIRINI auct. (including Hahn, 1833!) changed Pycnopterna Fieber, 1858, se lit Sas 1794, and Miris Fabricius sensu auct. into Leptopterna ieber, 1858. 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature This nomenclature, especially from 1952 to 1964, was widely used in a number of fundamental taxonomic works, guides and catalogues, the most important of which are mentioned by Prof. T. L. Jaczewski. In the absolutely analogous case of that other old genus of MIRIDAE—Capsus Fabricius, 1803, the Commission (Opinion 298), in respect to the application by Dr. W. E. China, rejected the formerly valid fixation of the type-species by Latreille, 1810, which has a priority, and in accordance with the “ distinction * of Fabricius, the subse- quent fixation by Westwood, 1840, and adopted usage, designated Cimex ater Linnaeus, 1758, as a type-species under the plenary powers. This timely decision has enabled hemipterists not only toavoid changes in the current nomenclature but also an embarras- sing situation in the family-group names. Unfortunately, the Commission did not discuss simultaneously the question of the type-species of the genus Miris. If the Commission, as in the case with the genus Capsus, rejects Latreille’s fixation and asserts the type-species of Miris according to the subsequent fixation of Curtis, 1838, this decision will have the following advantages: (1) the problem of the family name and its authorship will receive the most logical and simple solution, correspond- ing to the Code, since Miris Fabricius, 1794, with the type-species Cimex dolabratus Linnaeus, 1758, will be a type-genus of MIRIDAE Hahn, [1833], which is in full agreement with Hahn’s (1831-1835) interpretation of the genus Miris; (2) the genus Miris Fabricius will be interpreted in the best accordance with the author’s original diagnosis, as well as with Fallén’s subsequent restriction; (3) nomenclature, which was widely used from 1888 to 1943 in a great number of works, which are still of importance in our day, will be fully restored; (4) the name CAPSINI will be restored for the tribe now called MIRINI, which is very convenient since it is just this tribe which contains the majority of econom- ically important species known in applied entomology as “ capsid bugs ”’; (5) for the tribe STENODEMINI the name MIRINI Hahn, 1833, will be restored and cannot be threat- ened by the priority of PITHANINI Douglas and Scott, 1865. The negative side of such a decision consists in the alteration of the names for two genera and two tribes, which have been used in literature within the last twenty-two years. These genera, however, are not large ((2-4 species) and have no economic im- portance and the tribal names are exclusively used by specialists. The taxonomy of the family mrriDAr is in the stage of intensive elaboration, that is why the nomenclature of genera and tribes is usually undergoing correction and addition. Even if we pre- serve now the nomenclature of these two genera and two tribes, we shall not be able to save completely the nomenclature used in modern guides and catalogues of MIRIDAE from “ growing antiquated ” in the future. No doubt the transition to other names is inconvenient to specialists but is facilitated by the fact that these names were widely used within 75 years (1888-1943) and in the majority of basic works from 1943 to 1964 the restored names are mentioned as junior synonyms. If solution “* C” be used, then in accordance with the above considerations the International Commission is asked: (1) to set aside under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Miris Fabricius, 1794, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to fix Cimex dolabratus Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species for that genus; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Miris Fabricius, 1794 (gender : masculine), type-species, as fixed above under (1), Cimex dolabratus Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Stenodema Laporte, [1833] (gender : neuter) type-species, by original monotypy, Cimex virens Linnaeus, 1767; (c) Pycnopterna Fieber, 1858 (gender : feminine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Reuter, 1888, Cimex striatus Linnaeus, 1758; (d) Mira ete... .; (3) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Miris Latreille, 1810 (a junior homonym of Miris Fabricius, 1794); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133 (b) Myris Hahn, 1834 (an obvious spelling error for Miris Fabricius, 1794); (c) Miris Spinola, 1837 (a junior homonym of Miris Fabricius, 1794); (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) dolabratus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex dolabratus (type-species of Miris Fabricius, 1794); (b) virens Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Cimex virens (type- species of Stenodema Laporte, [1833]); (c) striatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex striatus (type- species of Pycnopterna Fieber, 1858); (d) macrocera etc. . . .; (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) MIRIDAE (correction of miriDEs) Hahn, [1833] (type-genus Miris Fabricius, 1794); (b) the name adopted for mirin1 Ashmead, 1900; (6) to place the following family-group names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) MiriDEs Hahn, [1833] (an incorrect original spelling for MiRIDAE Hahn, [1833]), and all subsequent incorrect spelling variants of family-group names based on the generic name Miris Fabricius, 1794; (b) MIRIDAE Dohrn, 1859 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Miris Spinola, 1837, nec Fabricius, 1794), and all subsequent spel- ling variants of this name; (c) MYRIDINA Berg, 1879 (erroneous spelling for MIRINAE Dohrn, 1859); (d) MintNéE Cockerell, 1893 (obvious printing error for MIRINAE Dohrn, 1859); (e) MIRINI Ashmead, 1900 etc. . . .: (f) MiRIDAE China, 1943 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Miris Latreille, 1810, nec Fabricius, 1794), and all subsequent spelling variants of this name. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF SARDINA PILCHARDUS AS THE NAME FOR THE EUROPEAN SARDINE. Z.N.AS.) 1614 (see volume 21, pages 360-362.) By E. Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) Any problems concerning names of well known and practically important fishes deserve particular attention and must be carefully considered. Wheeler’s action for preserving Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792) as the name for the European sardine, is to be supported. Arengus minor Cornide, 1788, does not appear as a serious threat to S. pilchardus; on the other hand, that name was so rarely employed for our sardine, that no upset of nomenclature is to be feared. In his book Cornide quoted each species with several words and it seems really evident that he did not apply the prin- ciples of binominal nomenclature. By C. E. Lucas (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Aberdeen) My attention has been drawn to the submission recently made by Dr. Alwyne Wheeler of the British Museum of Natural History, for the preservation of the name Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792) for the European sardine or pilchard. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, as fishery scientists, may I say how pleased We are to see this submission, and request that our support for it might be recorded. I believe indeed that this submission will have the support of many fishery scientists (as was instanced by a recent recommendation of the International Council for the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Exploration of the Sea), if only because it is so important to them to have the scientific names of such familiar and commercially important fish both fixed and in a familiar form. By G. Krefft (/nstitut fiir Seefischerei der Bundesforschungsanstalt fiir Fischerei, Hamburg-Altona, Federal Republic of Germany) In 1960 during its Annual Meeting, held in Moscow, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) set up a working group with the task to review the scientific names of the European marine fishes of major commercial importance with regard to their nomenclatural validity. As a member of this group and as a student of isospondyleous fishes, I was especially interested in A. Wheeler’s paper on Sardina pilchardus. As the European sardine is one of the best known and economically most important Clupeid species, the preserva- tion of its scientific name seems to be highly desirable in the interest of stability. Therefore, may I support Wheeler’s action. Having discussed this question with the members of the Sardine Committee of the ICES as well as within the above- mentioned working group and having personally considered it, I think (1) that the publication of Cornide, J., 1788, Ensayo de una historia de los Peces y otras producciones marinas de la Costa de Galicia, arreglado al sistema del caballero Carlos Linneo... 264 pages, Corunna, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature as a work in which the author did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature (2) that as a consequence the further steps suggested by Wheeler should be taken. Not only in the major zoological literature, but in the fishing industry of many countries, the binomen Sardina pilchardus is well known and widely in use. The specific name pilchardus, as from Walbaum, 1792, has even entered the custom- house regulations and the jurisdiction in several countries. I refer, f.i., to a verdict of the German Supreme Court (the “ Reichsgericht *’) ‘“‘ according to which in this country the trivial name ‘ Sardine ’ only may be used for the fish of the species C/upea pilchardus Walbaum, 1792 ” (R.G.St., Vol. 99, p. 132 of June 4, 1920). Also in some of the International Conventions, f.i. that of the canning industry, CIPC, the term “ sardine ” is fixed to include the European Sardine, Sardina pilchardus Walbaum and the species of the genus Sardinops Hubbs. Therefore, the preservation of the binomen Sardina pilchardus would be for the benefit also of the various governments, their legal advisers and the fishing industries involved. By Arni Fridriksson (Secretary General, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) At the 51st Statutory Meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which was held in Madrid from September 30th to October 9th, 1963, the Council’s Consultative Committee made the following recommendation and asked me to pass it on to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: “In the interest of long-standing custom, the Consultative Committee endorses the recommendation of the Sardine Committee that an attempt be made to conserve the scientific name Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum), 1792, and that the Council write in accordance with the Committee recommendation to the International Commis- ae Zoological Nomenclature forthwith (Sardine Committee Recommendation B (1))”. os Recommendation B (1) from the Sardine Committee, referred to above, reads as follows: “* Le Comité de la Sardine éstime que le Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer doit adresser 4 la Commission Internationale de la Nomenclature Zoologique la proposition d’adoption définitive pour la sardine du nom Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum), 1792, selon le loi du ‘ Nomina conservanda ’, et l’inclusion de celui d’Arengus minor Cornide, 1788, dans la synonymie de l’espéce.”’ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135 COMMENT ON THE VALIDATION OF THE GENERIC NAME ORTHOLITHA HUBNER, 1825 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1585 (see volume 20, page 380 and 21 pages 261-262) By R. Alvarado (Madrid, Spain) Concerning the proposal made by the present author, in the name of R. Agenjo (Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 20 : 380), it would be fitting to add the following considerations in view of the commentaries of C. Herbulot and D. S. Fletcher (Bu//. Zool. Nomencl. 21 : 261-262). 1. The generic name Ortholitha Hiibner, [1825], has been used by authors in a consistent manner for more than 70 years; included among others are the species mucronata Scopoli and plumbaria Fabricius. Bibliographic references follow, selected from among the most eminent of the specialists, using Ortholitha. 2. The species of Ortholitha are not in fact of medical, veterinary or agricultural interest, but have been cited hundred of times and are very common. Thus, in Grassé (J. Bourgogne. Lepidoptéres, in Grassé, t. X, fasc. 1 : p. 214, fig. 235), the genital apparatus of Ortholitha chenopodiata L. is used in order to explain the genital structure of the Geometridae. 3. No difficulty would arise if the status quo were maintained, providing the present status of the name Ortholitha were not to be changed, which would follow if the use of Phasiane sensu Herbulot is allowed to stand. But the reasons which E. Herbulot and D. S. Fletcher (Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 21 : 261-262) submit, lead the present author to believe that the Commission will have to give validity to Ortholitha Hiibner [1825] and fix a type-species for this genus. As regards the generic name Phasiane in the current sense (not sensu Herbulot), it is also widely used and includes well known species. As to the type-species of Ortholitha, neither R. Agenjo, as a specialist in Lepidop- tera, nor R. Alvarado, as the author of the proposal, see inconvenience in the opening of an inquiry in order to determine which should be the stated type-species, whether plumbaria Fabricius, 1775 (after Hulst, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 23 : 292. 1896) or mucronata Scopoli, 1763 (after Lhome, Cat. Lépidoptéres de France 1 : 456-457. 1923-1935). One must point out that George D. Hulst in the synonymy of Xanthorhoe Hiibner, in which the citation of Ortholitha is ‘* Ortholitha Hiib., Verz. 338. 1818, type plumbaria Fab.”’, has limited the type-species. This action confirms the selection of a type, finally conveyed by Lhomme. REFERENCES AUBERT, J. F., 1949. Papillons d’Europe. 2: 146. BERGE, F., 1910. Schmeterlingsbuch (9 ed. by H. Rebel), Stuttgart, p. 328. BERGE-JOANNIS, J., 1901. Atlas colorié des papillons d’Europe, p. 91 CutorT, J., 1917-19. Noctuelles et Géométres d’Europe, 2. éme. p. Vol. III, p 104. HERBULOT, C., 1949. Atlas des Lépidoptéres de France. 3 : 37. HERING, M., 1932. Die Schmetterlinge (in P. Brohmer, P. Ehrmann, G. Ulmer: Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas), Leipzig, p. 333. Hes.op, I. R. P., 1949. Revised indexed check-list of the British Lepidoptera. Ent. Gazette, 11 (3) : 173. HOFMANN, E., 1887: Die Gross-Schmetterlinge Europas, Stuttgart, p. 159. Kirsy, W. F., 1889. European Butterflies and Moths, London, p. 362. Kors, M., 1893. Die Schmetterlinge Mittel-Europas, Nirnberg, p. 203. LAMPERT, K., 1907. Die Gross-Schmetterlinge und Raupen Mitteleuropas, p. 224. OSTHELDER, L., 1929. Die Schmetterlinge Siidbayerns, pp. 397-399. Pierce, F. N., 1914. The Genitalia of the Group Geometridae of the Lepidoptera of the British Islands. Liverpool, p. 76. SORDELLI, F., 1885. Le Farfalle. Milano, p. 159. Soutu, R., 1961. The Moths of the British Isles. Ser. U1, pp. 133-137. Seitz, A. (L. B. Prout, in:), 1913. Les Macrolepidoptéres du Globe. Stuttgart, p. 158. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Sputer, A., 1910. Die Schmetterlinge Europas. Stuttgart, II, p. 30. STAUDINGER, O., and REBEL, H., 1901. Catalog der Lepidopteren des Palaearctischen Faunengebietes. Berlin, p. 281. TULLGREN, A., 1941. Svenska Fjdarilar. Stockholm, p. 239. VALLE, K. J., 1946. Suomen Eldimet Animalia Fennica. 5 Suurperhoset. IV Geometrae, p. 68. VoORBRODT, K., and MULLER-RUTZ, J., 1914. Die Schmetterlinge der Schweiz. Bern, p.35! ZERNY, H., and Beter, M. (in Kiikenthal-Krumbach, Handbuch der Zoologie, Insecta— 25 Ordnung Lepidoptera), 1936, p. 1711. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR PURPURA BRUGUIERE, 1789. Z.N.(S.) 1621 (see volume 21, pages 235-239) By C. O. van Regteren Altena (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) I agree with Dr. Keen that the proposals at the end of her paper present the best solution of the problems she dealt with. For me there is only one exception: I should prefer the family name Purpuridae to that of Thaisidae, but I must admit that the arguments in favour of these two possibilities practically balance each other. By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (La Jolla, California, U.S.A.) This application deals with several matters not very closely related, which might better have been submitted separately. I wish to comment upon only one of these, the proposed substitution of the little used family name THAIDIDAE for the older and more frequently used name PURPURIDAE. I am opposed to this step for the following reasons: First, the name PURPURIDAE is the older of the two, it dates from 1839 in any case, while THAIDIDAE originated in 1913, as has been stated. Secondly, the name PURPURIDAE is the commonly accepted name. The name THAIDIDAE has never come into general usage. Third, the old rule was that the family name should be derived from that of the nominate genus, which is Purpura. Thais at best is not more than a subgenus of Purpura. Consequently the use of the family name THAIDIDAE might easily result in confusion, since it is derived from a group of only subgeneric rank. It is true that Thais was for a while used as a generic name, and the reason for such use should have been accounted for in the application. These are the facts: The name Purpura dates from 1789, as has been correctly stated by the author of the application. When Dall realized that Martyn had used the name Purpura in a different sense as early as 1784, he followed the rule that requires that a genus should take the same name as its oldest subgenus and employed Thais for the entire genus in the broad sense as well as for the subgenus under it. When the Universal Conchologist of Martyn was suppressed availability was restored to Purpura Bruguiére, 1789, for which reason I would amend Dr. Keen’s application, and suppress the unnecessary name THAIDIDAE. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE NAME GARI SCHUMACHER, 1817 Z.N.(S.) 1461 By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (P.O. Box 1891, La Jolla, California) The revised proposals by Dr. Henning Lemche on the problems grouped around the generic name Gari Schumacher Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 (5) : 323, 1964, meet with my approval except for one detail. I do not think that the names Gari and Garum Dall, 1900, should be allowed to co-exist, as they are not different names but only Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137 different forms of the same name. As long as Latin is accepted as the medium in which zoological nomenclatorial terms are to be expressed, the laws of the formation of Latin words should be adhered to. And since generic names are nouns in the nominative case it follows that Garum is eligible for use, while Gari is not. The fact that the dubious specific name gari is to be suppressed does not help matters any, for it is clear that Schumacher originated his generic name by promoting a Linnaean specific name to generic rank, and in so doing showed that he was not a good Latinist, or he never would have committed the error of retaining the genitive case ending, which is accepted as a specific, but not as generic name. There is one difficulty with the suppression of the name Gari. It is the practice of the Commission not to suppress a name unless at the same time another name can 6e validated to take its place, and so far no name seems to have been proposed to replace either Gari or Garum. Since these two separate names are now considered to represent two different groups, the name Garum might be applied to either one, and in either instance a new name would be needed for the other. Such a new name should be proposed by a systematic zoologist, who is thoroughly familiar with the characteristics of each group. I do not offer to suggest such a name myself, because I am making this protest against Gari not as a systematic zoologist but as a classic Latinist. Of course I shall abide by the decision of the Commission whether it favors my suggestion or not. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO PLACE HUBNER’S ERSTE ZUTRAGE ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX. Z.N AS.) 1611 (see volume 21, pages 58-80) By W. H. T. Tams (British Museum (Natural History), London) In response to the request by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for comments on papers published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, I should like to offer some remarks on Dr. I. W. B. Nye’s application relating to the pamphlet by Jacob Hiibner entitled Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung Exotischer Schmetter- linge printed in 1808. In paragraph 3, Dr. Nye comments on, among other Hiibner works, the Tentamen. The settlement of a question propounded by the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature in its Opinion 97: “‘ Did Hiibner’s Tentamen, 1806, create mono- typic genera?” involved ultimately the rejection of the Tentamen, see Bull. Zool. Nomencl. (1950) 4 : 338, in which it is stated that the Commission, having fully realised that the wording of the summary of Opinion 97 was unsatisfactory, had agreed that ‘“‘ as regards Opinion 97, the entry to be made in the appropriate schedule should be that this leaflet was not published within the meaning of Article 25 and therefore that the new names which appeared therein did not acquire availability as from the date on which copies of that leaflet were distributed by its author; ... In the original Opinion 97, it is stated that Commissioner Karl Jordan submitted the case to ‘‘ Members of the Entomological Committee on Nomenclature” and various local committees and... , in addition, asked a number of entomologists for their views.”” He reported to the Secretary as follows: ‘“‘T. Arguments for the acceptance of the Tentamen names. [Paragraph] 5. _ If the Tentamen names are rejected, many other names (i.e., many of Ochsenheimer’s and Guenee’s, which are in general use, but have no more claim to recognition than have Hiibner’s) must be discarded, and the confusion would be terrible.” “II. Arguments against the acceptance of the Tentamen names. [Paragraph]5. If the Tentamen names are adopted no good will be served, some familiar names, such as Abraxas, will be superseded, other lists of naked names will become valid publications, and numerous useless changes and infinite chaos will result.” I have drawn attention to the above statements because we are faced with a similar predicament in considering the Erste Zutrage. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Much against my personal feelings, I sided with the non-acceptors of the Tentamen names, but I have since realised how wrong I was. Anxious to get on to some settled basis on which to build up a stable nomenclature, I unfortunately allowed myself to be influenced. Now that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is functioning with more satisfactory speed and is establishing official lists, as well as considering the opinions of everybody, one is encouraged to express one’s own views. I shall never change from the view that the suppression of the Tentamen was utterly wrong. If the decision relating to the Tentamen were now reversed, the most serious difficulties raised by the Erste Zutrage would disappear, together with a number of other diffi- culties arising from Hiibner’s works. Failing the reversal of that decision, no other course is possible than the rejection of the Erste Zutrage names. COMMENTS OF THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR BELEMNITES MUCRONATUS LINK, 1807. Z.N.(S.) 1160 (see volume 21, pages 268-296) By R. V. Melville (British Embassy, Paris) It is a pleasure for an English palaeontologist to write in support of Dr. Jeletzky’s application in the above case. The name Belemnitella mucronata has been used to designate the index-fossil of an important zone of the English chalk for some sixty years. The fossil itself is common in its zone and has been familiar toall workers in Chalk palaeontology and stratigraphy under the same name for even longer. Dr. Jeletzky does not overstate the confusion and dismay that would ensue if, by the strict application of the Rules, this fossil came to bear an unfamiliar name and if the name Belemnitella mucronata were to be trans- ferred to a species in a closely related genus and used as the index-fossil of the next succeeding zone. The fossil used for many years as the index of this next succeeding (Lower Maes- trichtian) zone was Ostrea lunata Nilsson, and during that period the abundant belemnites of the zone were not distinguished from Be/emnitella mucronata. Dr. Jeletzky was the first to show that these belemnites should be referred to the genus Belemnella and it is to him that we owe the use of more precise belemnite taxonomy in refining the stratigraphy of the »ucronata Zone. Since his first English paper on the subject (Jeletzky 1948a), the term “‘ zone of Belemnella lanceolata ’’ has quite replaced that of “‘ zone of Ostrea lunata”. The correctness of his main conclusions was at once recognised and accepted. Thus, although the name Belemnella lanceolata has only come into use fairly recently in Britain, it is already well entrenched in the general consciousness, applied both to the fossil and the zone, to the point where the transfer to this species of the name Belemnitella mucronata would cause confusion at that level. The two zones cannot, however, be considered in isolation one from the other, and any change in the established usage of the name would be disastrous. I therefore earnestly hope that the Commission will vote in favour of Dr. Jeletzky’s application. I also hope that Scandinavian, German, Polish and Russian workers will make their views known to the Commission. By C. L. Forbes (Department of Geology, University of Cambridge, England) I wish to support Dr. Jeletzky’s proposed designation of a neotype for the following reasons: (1) Strict application of the Rules, as proposed by Wind, would necessitate con- siderable alterations in established practice both in nomenclature and stratigraphy. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139 (2) Strict application would also apparently require the introduction of a new name for a species well-defined and well-known at present as Belemnitella mucronata and it is nowhere suggested that any useful result would accrue from this. The minor doubt as to precise horizon of the proposed neotype does not appear to me to be significant. Zoologically speaking, the specimen is a good one. My interest in this matter arises from work as a University teacher, museum curator and hydro- logical geologist in East Anglia, a region where the fossil in question, B. mucronata Jeletzky, is common and of importance in several aspects of my work. By C. W. Wright (London) I strongly support J. A. Jeletzky’s proposals, designed to stabilise current usage of Belemnitella mucronata and Belemnella. Any result other than that which he seeks to achieve would have most serious effects by making incomprehensible a whole mass of literature of great stratigraphical importance, which is based on the current usage of the names in question. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR CANCER SETIFERUS LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 1617 (see volume 21, pages 227-234) By Alfred R. Smalley (Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) The lengthy discussion of Holthuis’ proposal to validate a neotype for Cancer setiferus Linnaeus, 1767 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 (3) : 227-229, 1964; comments by Gunter, Ingle, and Holthuis, ibid., 229-234; and references therein) results from the difficulty in determining a type locality for Seba’s specimen. Regardless of the worth of the various points considered by Holthuis and Gunter, the question of the type locality apparently cannot be finally settled to the satisfaction of all. Gunter’s most serious objections to Burkenroad’s neotype designation really goes back to the provenance of the holotype. Since the matter cannot be settled on the basis of the systematic evidence, frequency of usage becomes all the more important. Application of the name Penaeus setiferus to the white shrimp of the West Indies and South America would be very upsetting to fishery biologists of the Americas. Surely Mr. Ingle recognizes that he very probably represents a minority opinion among fishery biologists, who are disturbed by, if not antagonistic to, nomenclatural changes in common species, particularly for non- zoological reasons. Therefore, the interests of stability, if not the weight of taxonomic evidence, favors the proposal of Dr. Holthuis to validate Burkenroad’s neotype designation of Cancer Setiferus. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE MAMMALIAN FAMILY-GROUP NAME CIMOLESTIDAE MARSH, 1889. Z.N.(S.) 1630 (see volume 21, page 363) By Charles A. Long (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana) 1. In regard to the proposal calling for suppression of the mammalian family-group name CIMOLESTIDAE Marsh, 1889, I concur that suppression best serves the aims of maintaining stability and universality of nomenclature. 2. If the rules of priority were followed in arranging Cimolestes incisus Marsh, 1889, in the family PALAEORYCTIDAE Winge, 1917, this family-name would be replaced by the older CIMOLESTIDAE. Clemens et al. (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 (5) : 363) properly Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature referred this case to the Commission (inasmuch as C. incisus was misidentified); their request for suppression is one of two possible actions. At first glance, usual taxo- nomic practice involving priority seems warranted; PALAEORYCTIDAE has been in use only 48 years and CIMOLESTIDAE has lain in disuse only 35 years. Neither is a nomen oblitum. Furthermore, not many persons have studied fossil mammals of the afore- mentioned taxa, and the literature is not burdened by their names. 3. If PALAEORYCTIDAE were supplanted by the older name CIMOLESTIDAE, the latter taxon no longer would include marsupials, as it did previously, but would instead include numerous insectivores formerly known as palaeoryctids. Furthermore, most palaeoryctids after 1958 are those insectivores which before that date and since 1926 comprised the DELTATHERIDIDAE Gregory and Simpson. This confusing revolution of names resulting from usual practice alternative to suppression is complicated by consideration of animals in time as well as space. Suppression of the name CIMOLES- TIDAE seems to me to best maintain stability of the names concerned, permitting more effort and print to be devoted toward study of the fossils themselves instead of toward determining and explaining names and time-ranges. 4. Including C. incisus with the other palaeoryctids hardly alters the concept of this family, as pointed out by the authors. One point in favor of following rules of priority, no matter what, is the preservation of the concepts of early workers as well as those of recent workers. In this case the early concept of C. incisus and its relation- ships is of little worth. SUPPLEMENT TO THE APPLICATION CONCERNING THE VALIDATION OF AMAUROBIUS C. L. KOCH AND COELOTES BLACKWALL. Z.N.(S.) 1625 (see volume 21, pages 150-153) By Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) and Otto Kraus (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (1) The main purpose of the original proposal is the stabilisation of accustomed usage of the generic names Amaurobius C. L. Koch, 1837, and Coelotes Blackwall, 1841. But we find now that the application needs to settle also the interpretation of the type-species of Coelotes. The problem is set out below. (2) At the time when the generic name Coelotes was established by Blackwall (1841), only one included species was mentioned: Clubiona saxatilis Blackwall, 1833, which consequently is the type-species (by monotypy). It was generally accepted by arach- nologists that saxatilis would be a junior subjective synonym of Drassus atropos Walckenaer 1830. These are the reasons why Levi and Kraus in their original applica- tion correctly cited saxatilis as type-species of the genus, but asked to place the *“* valid *”’ name atropos on the Official List. (3) P. Chrysanthus now points out! that in this current sense atropos is to be regar- ded a misidentified species: in contradiction to atropos autt., atropos Walckenaer 1830 with high probability seems to be a senior subjective synonym of Aranea terrestris Wider 1834 [= Coelotes], a closely related species, and thus the species currently known as C. atropos would loose its name, and should be called saxatilis Blackwall 1833. On the other hand, atropos would replace the well-known name terrestris. This is more than a case of simple name changing, for the transfer of the name atropos from one species to another within the same genus would lead to hopeless confusion. Coelotes atropos and terrestris are very important specific names in spiders. They refer to two of the most common European species, and they are almost continuously cited now in connection not only with taxonomic but also faunistic, ecological, and 1 We wish to express our sincere thanks to Father Chrysanthus who informed us (in litt.) of his conclusions. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141 ethological studies (Tretzel, 1961). Up to 1939, atropos has been used more than 200, terrestris more than 100 times (fide Bonnet, 1956). (4) Under these circumstances it seems justified to ask the Commission to stabilize extensive current usage (as established especially by O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879, Simon, 1937, Locket and Millidge, 1953, and Wiehle, 1963). There is no type-material of Drassus atropos Walckenaer, 1830, in existence; so the best solution of the case seems to be the interpretation of the nominal species in ques- tion by designating a neotype being in conformity with usage. We propose to regard a male specimen, on which Wiehle (1963 : 289-296) based his profound taxonomic treatment of the species, the neotype of atropos. It is trans- ferred from the collections of the Senckenberg-Museum, Frankfurt a.M. (SMF 12156) to those of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, for atropos was originally described from France by a French author. The label reads as follows: ‘* Amaurobius atropos (Walckenaer), Neotype of Drassus atropos Walckenaer 1830. Locality: Harz, Stolberg, Mischwald, unter Steinen. H. Wiehle leg IX.1934, det. 1962”. Since the fixation of this neotype is not in strict conformity with the provisions of article 74c (4; 5) of the Code, it will be necessary for the Commission to use its plenary powers when adopting this solution of the case. We propose to amend para. 13 (4, b) of our original application (Bull. Zool. Nomencl.: 21 (2) : 152) as follows: (b) atropos, Drassus, Walckenaer, 1830, Faune francaise, Aranéides, 27 : 171, as interpreted by the neotype designated by Levi and Kraus. SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSED REJECTION OF ASCOLI. Z.N.(S.) 1176* (see volume 20, pages 294-295) By C. Jacot-Guillarmod, J. Chester Bradley and J. G. Betrem Dr. Karl V. Krombein has kindly called our attention to the fact that in 1951 he designated Scolia flavifrons Fabricius to be the type-species of Asco/i Saussure and Sichel, 1864, (Krombein, 1951, p. 775). This he did on the assumption that Saussure and Sichel, by merely citing the unavailable name “* Asco/i ’’ Guerin as a synonym of the subgenus Triscolia Saussure and Sichel thereby validated it as a new nominal taxon dating from 1864, with themselves as authors. Dr. Krombein mentions in a letter to Dr. Betrem that he has discussed this situation with Mr. Sabrosky, who is of the opinion that Krombein’s treatment of Ascoli was the proper one under the old code, ‘‘ That is that Asco/i was validated in synonymy, that it should be credited to Saussure and Sichel, 1864, not to Guérin, 1839 * and further that Krombein’s designation of Sc. flavifrons to be the type-species was valid. Krombein wrote to Dr. Betrem further: ‘‘ Sabrosky points out that in the 1961 publication of the new code, Art. 11 (d) would have made unavailable a name first published in synonymy. However, in the revised edition of the new code as amended at Washington, in 1963, a saving clause was added to Art. 11 (d) so that such names recognized prior to 1961 (as in my treatment of Ascoli) are available.” With all of this we agree, except as modified by the following facts: (1) The taxon Triscolia was established not by Saussure and Sichel, 1864, but by Saussure, 1863, p. 17 (cf. Betrem in Betrem and Bradley, 1964, p. 433). (2) The type of the taxon Triscolia Saussure, 1863, was the Mexican species Scolia (Triscolia) badia Saussure, 1863, and this was type by monotypy. (3) Triscolia as used by Saussure and Sichel, 1864, was not as a new taxon, homo- nym of Triscolia Saussure, 1863+, but was an extension of the latter, consisting of the type-species with twenty-four others. *This statement has been prepared with the aid of a grant from the National Science Foundation of the United States of America. tSaussure and Sichel, p. 54, give this date as 1862, because Saussure’s paper was read December 29, 1962. It, however, could not have been published in that year. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965. 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (4) In establishing Ascoli as an available nominal taxon, by merely citing it as a synonym of ‘“ Triscolia nobis” (correctly Saussure, 1863), Saussure and Sichel, 1864, made it an objective synonym of the latter, that is one with the same type, namely Scolia (Triscolia) badia Saussure. (5) It follows that Krombein, 1951, should have cited Scolia (Triscolia) badia as type both of the taxon Triscolia Saussure, 1863, and of Ascoli Saussure and Sichel, 1864, had he been aware of Saussure’s 1863 paper. With these facts in mind, we repeat our request that the Commission add Ascoli Guéerin-Meneville, 1839, and Ascoli Betrem, 1926, to the Official index of rejected and invalid names in zoology, and further request them to add Asco/i Saussure and Sichel, 1864, to the same Index. LisT OF REFERENCES BETREM, JOHAN GEORGE and JAMES CHESTER BRADLEY. Annotations on the genera Triscolia, Megascolia and Scolia. Zoologische mededelingen. Jan. 14, 1964. 39 : 433-444. JACOT-GUILLARMOD, CHARLES FREDERIC, JAMES CHESTER BRADLEY, and JOHAN GEORGE BetrREM. Ascoli Guérin-Meneville, 1839, and Ascoli Betrem, 1926 (Insecta Hymenoptera); Proposed rejection as unavailable. Z.N.(S.) 1176. Bulletin of zoological nomenclature. July, 1963. 20 : 294-295. KROMBEIN, KARL V._ p. 775 (Jn Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico, Synoptic catalog. By Carl F. W. Muesebeck and others. U.S. Dept. of agriculture. Agricultural monograph no. 2. Washington, D.C., Government printing office, April, 1951, 1 p.l., 1420 p. fold. map.). SAUSSURE, HENRI DE. Sur quelques scolies de Basse-Californie. Annales de la Societé entomologique de France. 1863. (4) 3 : 17-19. SAUSSURE, HENRI DE and JULES SICHEL. Catalogue des espéces de l’ancien genre Scolia ... Geneve and Paris, 1864. 2 p.l., 352 p. 2 col. pl. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman: The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director: Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant: Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Opinions Opinion 729 (Mymar Curtis, 1829) .. Opinion 730 ( Yerbua Forster, 1778) Opinion 731 (Psylla Geoffroy, 1762) ase Opinion 732 (Bomolochus Von Nordmann, 1832) Opinion 733 (Candacia Dana, 1846) *, Opinion 734 (Naiadites angulatus Dawson, 1860) Opinion 735 (Biomphalaria Preston, 1910) New Cases Limacia Miiller, 1781 (Gastropoda): Proposed designation of a type- species under the plenary powers (Henning Lemche) Noctua barbara Fabricius, 1794 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed rejection as a nomen oblitum (D. F. Hardwick) Najas Hiibner, [1807] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed rejection as a nomen oblitum (Francis Hemming) : Aetheius Hiibner [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed rejection asa nomen oblitum (Francis Hemming) Gonophlebia Felder, 1870 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): "Proposed rejection ¢ as a nomen oblitum (Francis Hemming) Melanoplus Stal, 1873, Acrydium femurrubrum ‘De Geer, 1773, and Gryllus sanguinipes Fabricius, 1798 (Insecta, Orthoptera): Proposed addition to the Official Lists (D. K. McE. Kevan and V. R. Vickery) Leuctra Stephens, 1835 (Insecta, Plecoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (P. Brinck and J. Illes) Nupedia Karl, 1930 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species (D. M. Ackland) . ' Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879 and Peronopora Nicholson, 1881 (Bryozoa, Trepostomata): Proposed designation of a type-species in conformity with generally accepted usage (John Utgaard and Richard S. Boardman) On the status of Ephemera fuscata Linnaeus, 1761 (Insecta, Ephemerop- tera): Proposed designation of a neotype c 101 103 104 105 108 110 112 119 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Comments Comments on the proposed addition to the Official List, of Miridae Hahn, 1833. (D. Leston, G. J. Kerrich, B. D. Burks, H. Compere, D. P. Annecke, H. Lemche, T. Jaczewski and T. M. Kerzhner) Comments on the proposed preservation of Sardina pilchardus as the name of the European Sardine (E. Tortonese, C. E. Lucas, G. Kreftt and Arni Fridriksson) Comment on the validation of the generic n name Ortholitha Hiibner, 1825 (R. Alvarado) Comments on the proposed ‘designation of a type-species for Purpura Bruguiére, 1789 (C. O. van Regteren Altena and Joshua L. Baily) Comment on the proposals concerning the name Gari Schumacher, 1817 (Joshua L. Baily) , Comment on the proposal to place Hiibner’ S Erste Zutrige on the Official Index (W. H. T. Tams) . Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807 (R. V. Melville, C. L. Forbes and C. W. Wright). Comment on the proposed designation of z a ‘neotype for Cancer setiferus Linnaeus, 1758 (Alfred R. Smalley) Comment on the proposed suppression of the Mammalian family-group name CIMOLESTIDAE Marsh, 1889 (Charles A. Long) . ; Supplement to the application concerning the validation of Amaurobius C. L. Koch and Coelotes Blackwall (Herbert W. Levi and Otto Kraus) Supplementary statement on the proposed rejection of Ascoli Guérin, 1839 (C. Jacot-Guillarmod, J. Chester Bradley and J. G. Betrem) .. © 1965. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment Page 122- 133 133 135 136 136 137 138 139 139 140 141 Volume 22. Part 3. 13th August, 1965 pp. 143-206 THE BULLETIN OF sipriteopu ines sa NOMENCLATURE ors The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS Page Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications eer in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature fy : 7 58) {Sel iY 4: . 9 Wit oe laecontological Tashieute, ee re Moscow B-T1, USSR) ee Tented of Zoli, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March gee Atvarapo (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Natu , ural 1 May 1 | "ee at = ati lee pe ‘Gann (Bish Museum (Natral Histor), London) (2. May 1962) Assia - "Secretar)) BiNDER (M Nat poe? mom on pom May 1962) | teal taton dg New Orleans, = Professor Harold E. Vokes (Univer: Tulane, D. Louisana, Us) as io ham Dn id ; Dr. ee Institute, We York, va bore A 1963 a TOLL (. aed 5 ae (28 a“ ) i v Comparative Zoology at Harvard cei is sn of 1963) Meal BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE <2:0c:> Volume 22, Part 3 (pp. 143-206) 13th August, 1965 NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin:— (1) Validation of the generic name Cacatua Vieillot, 1817 (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 1647. (2) Designation of a type-species for Anthanassa Scudder, 1875 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1697. (3) Suppression of the specific name Aphelenchus steueri Stefanski, 1916 (Nematoda). Z.N.(S.) 1698. (4) Validation of the generic name Amblema Rafinesque, 1820 (Lamelli- branchiata) Z.N.(S.) 1699. (5) Suppression of the specific names Voluta pertusa Linnaeus, 1758, V. morio Linnaeus, 1767, V. ruffina Linnaeus, 1767 and Bulla conoidea Linnaeus, 1767 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1700. (6) Validation of the specific name Vespertilio yumanensis H. Allen, 1864 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1701. (7) Suppression of the generic name Trichogonia Rossmaessler, 1835 (Lamellibranchiata). Z.N.(S.) 1702. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary, London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on June 1965. Zoological Nomenclature COMMISSIONER DR. N. S. BORCHSENIUS We regret to announce the death, on May Sth 1965, of Commissioner Dr. Nickolai Borchsenius, Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, U.S.S.R. An obituary will be published in the Bulletin in due course. 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature GARI SCHUMACHER, 1817: COMMENTS ON DR. H. LEMCHE’S PROPOSALS By L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London), Z.N(S.) 1461 As instigator of the original proposals relating to the above nominal genus, I should like to offer some comments on Dr. Lemche’s “* Revised Proposals ” (1964, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 323-5). These coincide with mine except in two matters. I am prepared to accept Dr. Lemche’s recommendations on one of these but not on the other. An important point is involved which is likely to arise again when lectotypes are selected by reference to artist-drawn illustrations. As very divergent views as to the identity of Tellina gari Linnaeus have been ex- pressed by those who wrote criticizing my proposal that a neotype conforming with Chemnitz’s interpretation on the species should be established, I am not opposing Dr. Lemche’s suggestion that the name should be suppressed. The next available name for the species to which my proposed neotype belongs should at the same time be placed on the Official List. The name in question is Tellina truncata Linnaeus (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) : 1118), the holotype of which was illustrated in my original application (1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18, pl. 1, figs. 2a-d). This would not displace any name that has become established in the literature. To come, now, to the main point of this note. Exception must be taken to Dr. Lemche’s statement that Schumacher’s Gari vulgaris “‘ is defined by its extant type- specimen’, as if there were only one specimen concerned. The identification of G. vulgaris must be based on a lectotype selected from Schumacher’s syntypes. By referring to the two figures published by Chemnitz (1782, Conch. Cab. 6, pl. 10, figs. 92, 93) Schumacher made the specimens illustrated available as syntypes of G. vulgaris, the more so as it seems clear from Dr. Lemche’s researches that these specimens were studied by Schumacher; they may, in fact, have been the only material seen by him. Dr. Lemche has discovered from an associated label in the handwriting of the con- chologist O. A. L. Morch that the original of Chemnitz’s fig. 93 was the specimen of which the interior of both valves was figured by Schumacher in illustration of the hinge-structure of G. vulgaris, although this would not have been apparent without the label, as the relative size of the hinge-teeth is greatly exaggerated in his figures. Schumacher’s choice of this specimen to illustrate the characters of the hinge does not, however, make it the holotype of G. vulgaris. The earliest and, up to the present time, the only selection of a lectotype for G. vulgaris has been by myself (1961, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 226), and I chose the original of Chemnitz’s fig. 92. Dr. Lemche, however, finds that two specimens are now associated with a label referring to this illustration, and, while both belong to the species illustrated, he is unable to say which was the original of the figure. Either a second specimen has been added or (as Dr. Lemche considers probable) the figure was composite. Dr. Lemche argues that the existence of a second specimen makes the lectotype selection invalid, so that the unique original of fig. 93 (which belongs to a species long considered to be distinct from fig. 92) must, by elimination, be the type-specimen of G. vulgaris. This case suggests that the rule permitting the selection of a lectotype by reference to its published illustration needs amplification, if any selection can be held to be invalid when uncertainty is expressed as to which of two or more specimens was the actual one drawn by the artist; or as to whether an illustration, based partly or even mainly on one specimen, was completed by reference to another. It is now suggested that, once uncertainty has been expressed, an opportunity should be given to the reviser to declare which specimen is to be regarded as the original of the figure he has selected. This would be preferable to declaring all of the possible originals of the figure to be ineligible for selection as lectotype. As Gari vulgaris is a junior synonym (of Tellina truncata Linnaeus or of Solen amethystus Wood) whether it is restricted to the fig. 92 species or to the fig. 93 one, the essential issue in the present case is which of these species is to be accepted as type- species of Gari. The principle of established usage does not enter into the question, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145 as the various species cited as such in the literature do not include these and are unavailable by the provisions of the International Code. It would also probably be asked which of the two species concerned would best suit the convenience of workers in general. Dr. Lemche, in support of his preference for Solen amethystus, states that this comes from the “ geographical area wanted ”’, but is not clear why anybody should want it to come from any particular area, Schumacher having made no statement regarding the distribution of his species and genus. Dr. Lemche also makes the point that Tellina fervensis Gmelin, type-species of Psammobia Lamarck, needs separating, as an Atlantic species, at least subgenerically from the Indo-West Pacific species Solen amethystus, so that, if the latter is accepted as type-species of Gari, the familiar but junior name Psammobia could also be retained. While I am fully aware that taxonomic separation is a subjective matter, I can merely say that, after careful comparison of specimens of amethystus and fervensis, I have failed to detect any morphological characters, either internal or external, which would justify the reference of these species to different genera or subgenera. I would certainly object to the principle of basing taxonomic separation on geographical distribution. Tellina truncata, on the other hand, is unique among the Psammobiidae for its strongly discrepant ornament, the well-defined ribbing on the anterior part of its surface being oblique (as shown in fig. la of my original application) in contrast to the weak concentric ornament of Psammobia fervensis. For this reason many modern systematists would separate these two species subgenerically and possibly generically. The conclusion from this line of argument is that conservation of the name Psammobia as well as of Gari would be best brought about by the decision that Tellina truncata rather than Solen amethystus should be accepted as type-species of the latter nominal genus. I would thus strongly support Dr. Lemche’s “‘ revised proposals ’’ except for the following suggested modifications: Section 3 (pp. 324-5 of Dr. Lemche’s proposals) to read as follows: (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) truncata Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Tellina truncata [the oldest available name for Gari vulgaris Schumacher, 1817, as defined by the lectotype designation of Cox, 1961; type-species of Gari Schumacher, 1817]; (b) amethystus Wood, 1815, as published in the binomen Solen amethystus Wood; (c) fervensis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Tellina fervensis (type-species of Psammobia Lamarck, 1818); (d) filosa Conrad, 1833, as published in the binomen Psammobia filosa (type- species of Garum Dall, 1900). 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES FOR SIX GENERA IN THE SUPERFAMILY MURICACEA. Z.N.(S.) 1623 (see volume 21, pages 422-428) By David F. McMichael (The Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia) I wish to make the following comments on Dr. A. Myra Keen’s proposals con- cerning type-species in the Superfamily Muricacea (Z.N.(S.) 1623). In general I am very much in favour of attempts to stabilise generic names in the Muricacea, but in three of the cases submitted by Dr. Keen I think there are better solutions. My comments are numbered in the order of Dr. Keen’s submissions. 1. The identity of Murex mancinella Linné is certainly obscure as has often been pointed out. I agree that the best solution in this case would be to regard the species as a nomen dubium. However, I believe that Dr. Keen has erred in citing the type- species of Mancinella Link. The exact text in Link (1807, p. 115) is as follows: Mancinella. Igelschnecke. (Here follows a few lines of description in German, concluding with the broad synonymic reference (Murex L.) M. aculeata. Gezackte I. Murex mancinella. L.G. p. 3538. M. C. 3. t. 101. f. 967. 968.—M. hystrix... It is clear from this that in his genus Mancinella, Link included a nominal species, M. aculeata, to which he referred Murex mancinella Link and Gmelin as synonyms and which he defined by reference to two figures in Martini-Chemnitz, “* Conchylien Cabinet”. The species Mancinella aculeata Link is listed by Sherborn (1922, p. 50). According to the International Code, Article 68, (d)—“If a newly established nominal genus contains among its originally included nominal species one possessing the generic name as its specific name... as a cited synonym, that nominal species is ipso facto the type-species (my italics)”. Thus the type-species is not the cited synonym, but the “‘ nominal species originally included ”’ which in the case in question is Mancinella aculeata Link. The type of this nominal species must be the specimen figured in Martini-Chemnitz, 3, pl. 101, figures 967 and 968, which is clearly identifiable as Mancinella mancinella auct. Thus, while I agree that Mancinella mancinella Linné should be rejected as suggested, I would suggest that the correct type-species for -Mancinella Link is M. aculeata Link, 1807, which is identical with and has priority over M. gemmulata Lamarck. Since neither name has been used widely, the adoption of aculeata Link would not upset current usage. 2. I am in full agreement with Dr. Keen’s suggestions regarding Chicoreus Montfort, which would be in conformity with current usage in Australia. 3. Ihave no comments to make on the matter concerning the name Polyplex. 4. In regard to Thalessa H. & A. Adams, I agree with the need to distinguish between Murex hippocastanum Linné and M. hippocastanum auct., and it seems clear that Purpura aculeata Deshayes is an available substitute. There is however the possibility that, if aculeata Link be accepted as the type-species of Mancinella, then aculeata Deshayes would be preoccupied in Mancinella should any subsequent worker regard Mancinella and Thalessa as synonyms. However, the question arises as to whether it is desirable to resurrect the genus Thalessa, which seems to have been little used, was overlooked by Thiele and referred to the synonymy of two other genera by Wenz, when the name Menathais Iredale is available, with type-species pica Blainville (for which tuberosa RGding is considered an earlier name). Menathais has been used by a number of Australian workers during recent years (Allan, 1950, p. 144, Cotton, 1965, p. 1, Iredale and McMichael, 1962, p. 74) and it has been used in the identification of shells for a number of other scientists and shell collectors throughout Australia. It might therefore be a better solution to confirm Murex hippocastanum Linné as the type-species of Thalessa, and let the name disappear in the synonymy of Volema. Alternatively, both Thalessa H. & A. Adams and Murex hippocastanum Linné should be placed on the appropriate Index of Rejected Names. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. EEE" Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147 5. Inregard to Kalydon and Xymene, I fully support Dr. Keen’s proposals which will be in conformity with current usage. 6. In regard to Tolema Iredale, I cannot support Dr. Keen’s suggestion that the species Purpura sertata Hedley, 1903, should be confirmed as type-species. When Iredale created the genus To/ema he did so in the belief that the adult shell figured by him was worthy of generic separation. It is an accepted axiom that the type of a genus is in fact a species of animal, not a name, and it can generally be argued that when an author founds a genus on a clearly recognizable species, then that species ought to be regarded as the type, even though it was misidentified (see for example, Mayr, Linsley and Usinger, 1953, pp. 269-270). The correct way to bring this about is by application to the International Commission, and Laseron (1955) did not do this. Instead he took unilateral action and renamed the misidentified type-species of Tolema as Tolema australis Laseron, thus retaining the generic name Tolema for its accepted usage. For the group of species to which the true Purpura sertata Hedley apparently belongs, Laseron proposed Liniaxis with a new species L. elongata Laseron as type- species. Most Australian workers have adopted To/ema in the sense of Iredale and Laseron, and have used Liniaxis for the elongata—sertata series (e.g. Macpherson and Gabriel, 1962, pp. 182-183, Allan, 1950, p. 242, Iredale and McMichael, 1962, pp. 72-73) and a number of overseas workers have also used Jolema in the same way (e.g. Wenz, 1938, p. 1132, Kira, 1961, pp. 64-65). However, if Dr. Keen’s proposal is adopted then Tolema may have to be applied to the shells now known as Liniaxis. There does not seem to be any sense in taking action under the plenary powers which would make Tolema represent a group different from that which its author intended and different from that for which it has been used by a number of recent authors. Such action becomes even less acceptable when it involves the replacement of the generic name Liniaxis which has become accepted at least in Australia. The fact that Tolema (if continued in its present usage) would have to compete with the names Mipus Gregorio and Babelomurex Coen is beside the point. Neither are nomina oblita and consequently the three names are available for selection on priority grounds by any author who regards them as representing the same taxon. I therefore request that the type-species of To/ema Iredale, be determined as Tolema australis Laseron, the first available name for Tolema “‘ sertata”’ of Iredale, not Purpura sertata Hedley. REFERENCES ALLAN, Joyce 1950. Australian Shells. Georgian House, Melbourne Cotton, B.C. 1956. Family Thaididae. Pub/. Malacol. Club Vict., No. 1 INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 1961. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London IREDALE, T., and D. F. MCMIcHAEL 1962. A Reference List of the Marine Mollusca of New South Wales. Mem. Aust. Mus., 11 Kira, T. 1961. Coloured Illustrations of the Shells of Japan. WHoikusha, Osaka LASERON, C. F. 1955. The Genus Tolema and Its Allies. Proc. Roy. Zool. Soc. N.S.W., 1953-54, pp. 70-74 Link, H. F. 1807. Beschreibung der Naturalien-Sammlung der Universitat zu Rostock. (Facsimile Reproduction) MACPHERSON, J. J. and C. J. GABRIEL. 1962. Marine Molluscs of Victoria. Univ. of Melbourne, Melbourne Mayr, E., E. G. Linsey and R. L. UsinGer. 1953. Methods and Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw Hill, New York SHERBORN, C. D. 1922. Index Animalium, 2, A-B. British Museum (Nat. Hist.) London WENZ, W. 1938. Handbuch der Paldozoologie (Schindewolf), Band 6, Teil 1. Borntraeger, Berlin 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON APPLICATION TO VALIDATE XIPHIAS PLATYPTERUS SHAW & NODDER, 1792, FOR THE INDIAN OCEAN SAILFISH. Z.N.(S.) 1657 (see volume 21, pages 444446) By Henning Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The proposals relating to the name gladius Bloch (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 444— 446) do not appear easily acceptable to zoologists interested in stability in nomen- clature. To me, it seems much the simpler to restrict the name gladius Bloch so as to be valid only for the Pacific species. Is there any reason given by the applicant but not to be deduced from his applica- tion, why he does not use his right to serve as a “ first reviser ’’ through stating that he selects the specimen in the British Museum as the lectotype. Then, the name gladius Bloch becomes unequivocal, and I understand that it is this name that Mr. Whitehead wishes to replace by the forgotten name platypterus Shaw & Nodder. May I suggest, therefore, that the application is returned to Mr. Whitehead with the suggestion that he either withdraws it entirely and uses his right to serve as a first reviser in such a manner as to preserve the name g/adius Bloch now in use, or supplies the Commission with further information on his reason for not doing so. REPLY TO COMMENTS BY HENNING LEMCHE By P. J. P. Whitehead (British Museum (Natural History), London) Dr. Lemche’s objection to resurrection of Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792, for the Indian Ocean sailfish is merely personal preference for the conservation of Istiophorus gladius (Bloch); it fails to undermine the reasons given for preferring the former name, and advances as reasons only simplicity and easier acceptability. Revision and type designation are only the means towards effecting Dr. Lemche’s preference, not reasons for doing so, and are thus irrelevant to the issue. The question centres plainly round the concept of “stability”. My application gave reason why purely verbal stability (retention of the name gladius) should be sub- ordinated in favour of nomenclatorial stability (provision of unassailable basis on which species was first described). To achieve the former (verbal stability), several rather arbitrary steps must be taken. Much of Bloch’s description of Scomber gladius, and most of his figure, must be discounted. The fact that a well-known specimen had been described and figured accurately must be passed over in favour of designating it neotype of a species so in- accurately described that specimen and figure are sometimes in flat contradiction. This is perhaps not unexpected since the author of Scomber gladius had never examined what would now become the type. To achieve the latter (nomenclatural stability), only a single controversial step is required (resurrection of a nomen oblitum). The description and type agree, and the name accords with all the provisions of the Code except Article 23(b). For simplicity, the latter course is quite plainly superior to the former. For easier acceptability, it can be pointed out that Article 23(b), without which the present application would be unnecessary, has been perhaps more heavily attacked than any other article in the Code (for example by Bradley, 1962, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 19 (6) : 345-346; Smith, 1962, ibid., 19 (6) : 346-348; Holthuis, 1963, ibid., 19 (6) : 348-349; Vockeroth, 1963, ibid., 20 (1) : 79-80; Sabrosky, 1963, ibid., 20 (1) : 79-80). Name changes caused by systematic procedure (through lumping or splitting) are accepted and assimilated to the extent of their objective (ultimately biological) validity. Verbal convenience is not one of the parameters involved. Name changes caused by nomenclatural procedure, however, may rest solely on grounds of priority, in which case, all else being equal, convenience, acceptability and the interests of general usage Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149 must be considered. But, in the present case, the choice involves not merely priority, but also comparison between the objective validity of two names as indications of the species. In this sense, there can be little doubt that Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder is superior. This fact outweighs any temporary inconvenience caused by a name change. Other name changes may well follow revision of the several nominal Indo- Pacific species of Jstiophorus, perhaps resulting in the recognition of a single species. That species should be based on an accurate description and type specimen, both of which pertain to Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder; neither of which pertain to Scomber gladius Bloch. My application is, therefore, not withdrawn. FURTHER COMMENTS BY HENNING LEMCHE Z.N.(S.) 1657 Mr. Whitehead seems to have slightly misunderstood my attitude in the case of Scomber gladius, maybe because he may not have realised that I have no personal preference but that as a Commissioner I will have to vote against his application as the reasons for adopting it do not appear sufficiently strong to me. I have never asked Mr. Whitehead to establish a neotype for Scomber gladius, but I have asked for the reasons why Mr. Whitehead has not himself clarified the issue simply by selecting the specimen in the British Museum as the lectotype. Such a procedure would make that name unambiguous, and clarifications of this sort are commonplace in taxonomy. The introduction in the Rules of the completely new principle advocated by Mr. Whitehead of nomenclatorial (sic!) stability versus a verbal one would probably be most disturbing. It has never been practice to consider the name used in the better description as thereby being the one to be preserved even against general usage. On the other hand, if the specialists concerned do support Mr. Whitehead’s proposal to the exclusion of the one mentioned by me, I would imagine that my attitude would become influenced. The misinterpretations of Article 23(b) which form the basis of many protests against its application do not need to be discussed here, as they may soon be officially treated in some manner. REPLY TO HENNING LEMCHE’S COMMENT By P. J. Whitehead The three points in Commissioner Henning Lemche’s comment can be briefly answered. 1. Lectotype designation: the British Museum Banksian sailfish, undoubted holo- type of Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder, could be designated neotype, not lectotype. The Code clearly indicates that a /ectotype be chosen only from syntypical material. The specimen is not one examined by Bloch. Lectotype designation might be made under the Plenary Powers, but the designation of this specimen as type of Scomber gladius Bloch would be most improper because, (a) Bloch’s description (text) has been almost universally condemned since Giinther (1868, Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus., 2 : 513), (b) but authors have accepted Bloch’s figure (albeit with misgivings since it shows a ‘‘ generic hybrid’ between the swordfish, Xiphias gladius L., and a species of sailfish, /stiophorus), (c) however, Scomber gladius Bloch has been unequivocally restricted to an Atlantic species by Whitley (1955, Austral. Mus. Mag., 11 (12) : 382) (on Bloch’s figure only—see my reply to Prof. Robin’s comment). Bloch cites but criticises Broussonet’s description of the Banksian specimen. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Since Broussonet’s description is fair, it must be presumed that Bloch’s material (or at least concept of the species) differed sufficiently from the specimen which Com- missioner Lemche now suggests as type, for Bloch to comment. 2. Usage and acceptability: Prof. Robins and other scombroid specialists favour recognition of a single Indo-W. Pacific species of sailfish. In Japanese waters the name J. orientalis (Temm. & Schleg.) has hitherto been consistently applied; the senior synonym to replace it will be immaterial since either of the two in question will temporarily upset popular literature. In the Indian Ocean, the name “‘ gladius”’ has been generally used. But all scombroid specialists who have made their opinion known have been in favour of resurrecting the name “‘ p/atypterus”’, and a number of other ichthyologists have concurred. 3. Nomenclatural stability: in many cases, the merit of a particular name over another is decided solely on the grounds of priority of publication. In the present case, however, the issue is not priority, but .priority versus conservation. This results from Article 23(b), the prior claim of p/atypterus requiring support from other factors. The chief of these is the concept to which the names “ platypterus”’ and “ gladius”” were first attached. A ruling in favour of the name “ g/adius ” will render the concept to which it was attached so altered that the author would neither recognise it, nor (apparently) accept the type specimen provided for him. However, a ruling in favour of the name “ p/atypterus ’’ would preserve the original author’s concept (i.e. description and type specimen), and such an action seems to embody a more fundamental degree of stability than the arbitrary retention of an extremely dubious name. It is in this sense that a purely verbal stability was con- trasted with a nomenclatural stability. The necessity for this is not new; it is inherent in Article 23(b) in which the basic Law of Priority is placed in opposition to another principle (i.e. conservation). By C. R. Robins (Unstitute of Marine Science, University of Miami, U.S.A.) Although the writer supports Dr. Whitehead’s principal position he wishes to clarify several points. 1. The sailfishes, Jstiophorus, have never been subjected to systematic review and their taxonomy is definitely unsettled. Most workers who have concerned them- selves with the problem have concluded that there is but one species in the Atlantic Ocean though admittedly few specimens have been recorded from the African sector of the Atlantic (and these unavailable for study). To this species most now apply the name IJstiophorus albicans Latreille, 1824 (Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat., Paris, ed. 1, vol. 24: 104) (latinization of makaira blanchatre of Bosc in turn based on Marcgrav’s Guebucu). Modern use of this stems from Whitley, 1931 (Rec. Austral. Mus., vol. 20, no. 1 : 16-17) who in turn was followed by Fowler (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Phila- delphia, 1941, vol. 93 : 84-85; Monogr. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1945, no. 7: 290-291). The eastern part of the Pacific ocean also seems to have one species of Istiophorus whose features differ somewhat from albicans. To this species the name I. greyi has been regularly applied; J. orientalis Temminck and Schlegel, 1842 has been used less often, especially in recent years. Least is known about the sailfishes of the vast Indo-Pacific region. As noted by Mr. Whitehead, recent reports have favoured the recognition of one species in that region and the name J. gladius (Bloch) has often been used, especially recently. To this correspondent the sailfish of the Indo-West Pacific differs from that of the Atlantic but no comment is offered on the distinction of gladius and greyi. Other later names are available but they are not pertinent to this discussion. 2. Scomber gladius Bloch is, as noted by Whitehead, based on references to sail- fishes from the Indian and the Atlantic oceans (Broussonet and Marcgrav, respectively) and hence on two species. What Mr. Whitehead has not noted is that Goode, 1882 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 4 [1881] : 424425), separated the Atlantic and Indian ocean sailfishes applying to the latter the name Jstiophorus gladius. He particularly discusses this restriction on page 426 (erroneously considering Broussonet to be the author of gladius) stating (page 426 that gladius was based largely on a stuffed speci- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15] men sent to the British Museum “ from the Indian Ocean . . . where it still remains in the collections, . . .” Possibly this is the same specimen on which platypterus is based. The late John K. Howard in a manuscript now in press discusses this restric- tion and both he and the present correspondent agree that Goode’s action constituted a valid restriction of the name by a revisor. Whitley apparently was unaware of Goode’s action when he restricted (Austral. Mus. Mag., 1955, vol, 11, no. 12: 382) action. Goode’s action predated Jordan’s (1917) designation of Scomber gladius as the type-species of Istiophorus, 1792, as published in the binomen Xiphias platypterus on the official List of gladius will be available if the sailfish problem turns out to be more complex than now believed. Indeed, if Goode’s action is taken to include selection of a type specimen, gladius and platypterus may Prove to be based on the Same stuffed sailfish. (4) Proposals (1) and (2) unexpected, species of Indian Ocean sailfish, there can be no question that the two will be congeneric. Most of the points reviewed here were discussed with Col. John K. Howard. We were in agreement and had in mind Preparing a joint statement to the International Commission. Col. Howard’s death Prevents such a joint statement. REPLY TO PROF. ROBINS’ COMMENT By P. J. P. Whitehead (British Museum (Natural History), London) Professor Robins’ letter in support of my application to validate Xiphias Dlatypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792 for the Indian Ocean sailfish calls for a comment on the Systematic procedure of Goode (1882, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., 4: 424-425) in dealing with the name “ &ladius ”’. Professor Robins argues that Goode restricted Istiophorus gladius (Bloch) to an Indian Ocean species, whereas it had originally been based on Atlantic as well as Indian Ocean records. However, a much more cogent argument can be advanced to show that Goode did not so restrict Bloch’s name. This has an important bearing on the Atlantic species of Sailfish. 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature First it must be acknowledged that Goode accepted Broussonet’s authorship of the name Scomber gladius. Thus, he cites the species as ‘‘ 9. Histiophorus gladius (Broussonet) Lacépéde ”’, with ** Scomber gladius, Broussonet, Mem. Acad. Sci. 1786, p. 454, pl. X”’ as the first reference in the synonymy. Following the synonymy he notes that the species was “‘ described first by Broussonet ”’, and again (p. 426) that “From this specimen [i.e. the British Museum type] M. Broussonet prepared a description, giving it the name Scomber gladius....°’ Goode’s citation of Lacépéde as author (in part) does not mean that Lacépéde cites for the first time an MS name attributable to Broussonet; Lacépéde (1802, Hist. Nat. Poiss., 3 : 375) mentions Broussonet but associates no binomen with this reference. Lacépéde himself used the binomen J/stiophorus gladifer, not Istiophorus gladius as Goode mis-quotes. Second, far from unequivocally restricting Scomber gladius Bloch to an Indian Ocean species, Goode (pp. 423-424) cites Bloch’s figure (but not description) in the synonymy of both an Indian Ocean and a United States species. It is important to note that Goode makes no further reference to Bloch, and no reference anywhere to Bloch’s description. Clearly then, it was the Indian Ocean “* Scomber gladius Broussonet ”’ which Goode ** restricted ’’ to an Indian Ocean species; not only had he no cause to restrict Scomber gladius Bloch, but patently he did not do so. Thus Goode’s action cannot in itself serve to render Scomber gladius Bloch a junior synonym of Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder. The first true restriction of Scomber gladius Bloch was that of Whitley (1955, Austral. Mus. Mag., 11 (12) : 382). This was based on Bloch’s figure, Bloch’s description being considered an amalgam of Atlantic and Indian Ocean species. Whitley identifies the figure as based on a drawing by Prince Maurice of Nassau- Siegen, who painted fishes from Eastern Brazil, and therefore Whitley unequivocally restricts the name to an Atlantic species. If the name Scomber gladius Bloch is to be retained (and not regarded as a nomen dubium), and if restrictions on the meaning of such doubtful names are to be accepted, then /stiophorus gladius (Bloch) must be given priority over J. albicans (Latreille), 1824 for the single Atlantic species recognised by Professor Robins. In the light of the argument set out here, paragraphs (1) and (2), and suggestions -(3) and (4) of Professor Robins’ letter require re-appraisal and perhaps re-statement, particularly in the search for the correct name for the Atlantic species of sailfish. The points raised by Professor Robins do not, however, invalidate the original argu- ment set out in my application, nor the four proposals on which the Commission’s ruling was sought. By F. Williams (Guinean Trawling Survey, Lagos, Nigeria) From 1951-62 I worked at the East African Marine Fisheries Organisation, Zanzibar. I was concerned from 1958-62 with the biology of, and the sport fishery for, the Indian Ocean Sailfish, off the East African coast. In my review of the East African scombroid fishes presented to the Marine Biology Association, Mandapam Camp Symposium in 1962 I noted that the commonly accepted name IJstiophorus gladius (Broussonet) could not stand, as although the specimen is in the British Museum (Natural History), Broussonet did not give the fish a scientific name (no Latin bino- men). Some years ago I examined the B.M.(N.H.) specimen of sailfish collected by Banks and was in no doubt that it represented the Indian Ocean sailfish. However, I did not then carry out further investigation to determine the correct binomen for the fish. I have provisionally used the name Jstiophorus gladius Bloch 1793 with great caution pending future clarification. Certainly I think this clarification has now been made by Mr. Whitehead and I consider a strong case, which I strongly support, has been outlined for the validation of the nomen oblitum Xiphias platypterus for the Indian Ocean sailfish. Several workers, including myself, are currently working on the biology of the Indian Ocean sailfish and it will be of great practical importance to have at long last a valid scientific name for the fish. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153 By Th. Monod (Museum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, 57, Rue C, uvier, Paris 5) Ayant pris connaissance de la Proposition du Mr. P. J. P. Whitehead (B.Z.N., 2 6, Dec. 1964, p. 444-446), je désire vous signaler que j’approuve et appuie cette pro- position. L’exposé de l’auteur est trés clair: il €n ressort que le nom spécifique de platypterus (Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792) doit se voir substitué a gladius (Scomber &ladius Bloch, 1793). D’autre Part “ Xiphias platypterus ”’ semble bien devoit devenir le type du genre Istiophorus Lacépéde 1801, et remplacer a cet égard le “ Scomber gladius ” de Bloch 1° auquel ne correspond aucun spécimen authentifié et 2° dont la diagnose (et la figure) ne permettent méme Pas ( fide Whitehead) de préciser l’apparten- ance générique (Xiphias ou Istiophorus?) 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED REJECTION OF HUBNER’S ERSTE ZUTRAGE, 1808. Z.N.(S.) 1611 (see volume 21, pages 58-80) The following passage is the ““ Summary and Conclusions ”’ from a full comment on this case published by Dr. E. Berio (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) in Mem. Soc. ent. Ital., 43 : 129-144). During his fertile activity as a describer of species, J. Hiibner prepared the drawings of thousands of Lepidoptera and arranged them in about 2435 engraved plates painted by hand. They were intended for separate volumes of different works; however, they were printed and sold in batches differing in the number of included plates and in their destination, according to the number that it was possible to print. The fascicles of text relating to these plates were irregularly distributed, before, during or after the distribution of the corresponding plates. The sale of the plates was not, however, affected by the irregular appearance of the text, because on each plate and for each illustration, the author printed the generic and specific name and usually other taxonomic names useful for giving to the plates their own value in- dependently from the text. Thirty-five plates are to be excepted: they appeared between 1808 and 1813, had no names at all and contained the illustrations of 75 species not taxonomically arranged and bearing only consecutive numbers. The text for these 35 plates was only pub- lished in 1818.1 It is certain that Hiibner did not want to keep as a secret the names of those 75 species until the appearance of the text: this is demonstrated indeed by the citation of some of those names (with reference to those 35 plates) already in the fascicles of the Verzeichniss published in 1816. So it is impossible that Hiibner published for more than five years some figures of Lepidoptera without names. We know that in 1808, at the beginning of the publication of such plates, he printed at least three copies of a fascicle containing a list of 75 binomials with numbers referring to the 75 species which were subsequently figured in the 35 plates. This may easily be verified by comparing the specific names contained in the text of 1808 with those of the 1818 text. It is immediately evident that the Erste Zutrdge was sold or presented to the prob- able purchasers of the plates during their gradual publication. We must therefore deduce that at least as many copies of the Erste Zutrdge were printed, as there were copies of the plates which were sold later on. It is also to be inferred that the author sold, or more probably presented, the Erste Zutrdge to those who had purchased the plates without it or without receiving it with the first group of purchased plates. We must conclude that the small fascicle printed with the title Erste Zutrdge and an- nouncing the intention of publishing the plates (and of giving meanwhile provisional names to the species to be illustrated later on) was really published. There are several strange aspects related to the printing of the Erste Zutrdge. The 107 plates of the Zutrdge differed from the others; the small fascicle was in- complete and suddenly stopped, notwithstanding the promise of continuation. Some of the specific names of the Erste Zutrdge differed from those of the text of 1818. All the generic names were changed in the later work. The great rarity of the copies of the fascicle. All these peculiarities are neither proof nor an indication that the small fascicle was never distributed. On the contrary, they have an easy explanation in the historical and bibliographical analysis which has been fully dealt with in my paper and here is now briefly summarized. The Erste Zutrdge was compiled with the purpose of announcing the publication of plates containing the illustrations of new taxa that Hiibner had received after recently becoming acquainted with collectors from South America. At first, Hiibner 1 We are concerned here with only the 26 plates, illustrating the 75 species which were named in the Erste Zutrdge. Further, all 172 plates of the Zutrdge were without names. [Editor] Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155 had planned a contemporary publication of plates and text, but immediately after having printed and distributed the first fascicle of the text, Hiibner did not continue it and was only interested in the plates, that probably were more easily sold. Hiibner needed to sell them, as his life, after the end of 1700, was not supported by a rich income and his spare money had gone after the trouble provoked by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. He had a wife and a daughter and his work as a textile designer certainly did not provide a luxurious life.” Meanwhile Hiibner’s new systematic ideas born in 1806 and expressed in the Tentamen—on which also the Erste Zutrdge was based—were gradually changing. He went on preparing the plates in the same order as he had announced in the Erste Zutrdge (as he felt compelled to do so for the benefit of those who had received the latter), but he avoided putting names on the plates in order to preserve the possibility of a further systematic change (influencing the generic names) and kept the references to the Erste Zutrdge only by numbers. When the buyers had the Erste Zutrdge, they kept it together with the plates, as the only means of knowing the name of each species. They waited for the continuation even when they saw on the sale lists that the author announced that the text would be published later on. It was impossible for them to know that Hiibner would not go on with the text already begun, but would prepare a different one. When the first volume of plates came to its end, Hiibner wrote the new text with the title Zutrdge, etc., and distributed it. Competent people thought that for this reason the Erste Zutrdge had no more value and threw it away, attaching to the plates the new text. Some had purchased the plates without a great interest and so kept both texts without further enquiring. In this way a copy went to the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Milan, where nobody was interested in Lepidoptera during the eighteenth century; a copy remained in Friedlander & Sohn’s hands, who had sold a complete set of text and plates; a copy—perhaps preserved by someone endowed with an unusual bibliographical mentality—was left in Vienna, bound with the Zutrdge. The copy preserved in Berlin arrived perhaps with Hiibner’s papers, as the author surely kept at least one copy in order to keep the illustrations to the same arrangement, but perhaps it was Herrich- Schaeffer’s personal copy. I feel sure that other copies may have been lost chiefly in Germany during World War II, and that others may still exist in private or public libraries. Together with the three copies that are known, they prove with absolute certainty that the Erste Zutrdge was published and must be declared as such by the Commission in order to stop for ever the questions on its evident availability for nomenclatorial purposes. I have, furthermore, explained here the indirect proof which is not at all impaired by Dr. Nye’s arguments, which are not univocal and therefore cannot support a contrary opinion. 2 These are the authors who reported information on Hiibner’s life: Geyer (Thon: Archiv. 1: 28), Freyer (Ent. Ztg. Stettin 22: 297), Ferd Unt. ent. Ztg. 10: 125), Hemming (Hiibner 1: 3). 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MEMORANDUM ON PROPOSAL TO VALIDATE CACATUA submitted by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. Z.N.(S.) 1647 The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the Inter- national Ornithological Congress (hereafter referred to as $.C.O.N.) opposes the application to use the plenary power to credit Brisson (1760) with author- ship of the generic name Cacatua. For reasons discussed below, the S.C.O.N. believes that it would create an unnecessary precedent, highly disturbing to nomenclatural stability, to attribute generic status, with authorship in Brisson, to a name that was not a genus in his “ Ornithologie ”—as a device to achieve priority. This would not only require suspension of the provisions of the Code, but would be contrary to repeated decisions by the Commission on Brissonian names and to the most authoritative usage prior to the Régles (Cf. Opinion 37, 1911, Smiths. Publ. 2013, pp. 125-137; supplemented by Direction 105, 1963, Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 20, pp. 343-344; see full discussion J. A. Allen, 1910, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 28). Substitute Proposal To settle the current conflict in usage, the S.C.O.N. submits, instead, this proposal (which will involve no exceptions to previous Brissonian rulings)— the validation of Cacatua Vieillot, 1817, as a nomen conservandum.+ Outline of the Situation ‘“* Cacatua”’ of Brisson. The nomenclature of Brisson is discussed in detail in an authoritative article by Commissioner Allen (1910) mentioned above, which gave the background for the Opinion 37 of 1911, written by him for the Commission, establishing that only the 115 genera considered and listed as such by Brisson himself have any nomenclatural standing under his author- ship. Direction 105, 1963, merely implemented and clarified this long estab- lished and correct decision. Admittedly ‘ Cacatua”’ is not one of the 115 genera of Brisson. -It is one of a number of specific substantives included by Brisson in his genus Psittacus. There are dozens of other such Latin substan- tives whose first post-1758 appearance was in the “ Ornithologie”. These have the same “ Brissonian ”’ status as “‘ Cacatua ”’, but nobody today credits them to Brisson. Were such names to be given Brissonian status as of 1760, a major and useless revolution in ornithological nomenclature would result, 1 The S.C.O.N. has been informed that this proposal is fully acceptable to the proponents of the original application [Z.N.(S.) 1647] to validate Cacatua as a Brissonian name. The support- ing arguments here presented do not purport to represent the views of such original applicants, for this memorandum was independently prepared by the S.C.O.N. Since the preparation of this paper—a draft of which was sent to Australia—the S.C.O.N. has been informed by the Convener of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union’s Checklist Committee that the committee voted in favor of the proposal to adopt Cacatua Vieillot—as here recommended. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157 involving changes of authorship, changes and transfers of names, and changes of applicability through alteration of generic type-species. Brisson’s great multi-volume “ Ornithologie’? was written in parallel columns of French and Latin. The ‘“ Ornithologie ” is in no sense a binominal work. Like many early zoologists, Brisson recognized genera. His genera Brisson did not leave in doubt, for he named them in Latin and French calling them expressly “‘ genus” and “ genre’, designating and numbering them as such in the introductory ‘“‘ Tabula Synoptica ’’, in the text, and in the volume indexes. There were 115 such genera, and they are the accepted valid current names (where not junior synonyms or homonyms of Linnaean 1758 names). In naming species, Brisson did not use the 1758 Linnaean method. _Brisson’s system (though not binominal) was plain and internally consistent—he simply translated or adapted into Latin the French vernacular name listed by him for the species. If the French specific name consisted of one word, Brisson’s Latin name was mononominal; if the French specific name consisted of two, three, or four words, the Latin name was polynominal. Similarly, whether the generic name was included in the Latin name of the species depended on whether or not the French vernacular name included the French generic name. As a consequence, in a large proportion of cases the name of a species, even when polynominal, did not include the name of the genus in which Brisson placed it. But Brisson left no doubt as to generic allocation, for the included species were listed under their genus in sequence, with Arabic numbers, the numbers starting anew with each genus. The consistency of Brisson’s translating system led him to use the same substantive (with modifiers) for species which he placed in different genera. For example, because the French called many red birds “ Cardinal’, he used the Latin “ Cardinalis ’, with modifying adjectives, in at least three of his genera (Passer, Tangara, and Coccothraustes); similarly, although he recognized a genus for the thrushes called Turdus (“ Grive ” in French), he also named a species in his very different genus Tringa, “ Turdus aquaticus ”’ because the French vernacular name was “ Grive d’eau ”’, In his parrot genus Psittacus (genre ‘‘ Perroquet” in French), he used a variety of Latin substantives depending so/ely on French vernacular usage. Thus those birds known in French as “‘ Are’, he designated in Latin “ Ara’; the French “ Kakatoés ” he called ‘‘ Cacatua”’; the French “ Perruche ” (a then vernacular for a female parrot) he called “ Psittaca ” (feminine of Psittacus); the French ‘“‘ Lorie”? became “ Lorius *, the French “‘ Perruche petite”, “ Psittacula”’. Scattered throughout were birds with the French substantive “ Perroquet ’’, and these were the only species which he called by the Latin name “ Psittacus”’ (the generic name of the entire group). The Latin substantive adopted thus depended, not on Brisson’s views of relation- ship, but on conformity with French vernacular usage. * Under the Régles, Opinion 37 recognized as available Brisson’s 115 genera on the theory that Brisson was a “binary”, although not binominal, author. Under the Code different language is used, but the same result follows because of the publication of these genera in the index (see Art. 11(c) (ii)), and also because a previously made decision of the Commission as to a particular work remains effective (Art. 86(a)). Brisson’s generic names were validated under the Plenary Powers in Direction 16, 1955. See Bull. zool. Nomencl., 19: 9, 1962. [Editor] 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The number of Brissonian Latin substantive names is very great. Many of them (as was true of many of his generic names) had long been in the literature published in Latin before Linnaeus, or were probably used by the learned. In later binominal works most, possibly all, of these substantives were introduced as true generic names by subsequent authors, sometimes “‘ ex Brisson ”’, some- times with a rather different application. Such well-known generic bird names (to mention only a very few) as Fregata, Egretta, Ara, Psittacula, Turtur, Cardinalis had their first post-1758 publication as substantives (not as genera) in Brisson’s “ Ornithologie ”—yet, though in current use, no modern ornithological work credits them to Brisson. Their status as “ Brissonian ”’ is exactly the same as that of “ Cacatua ’’, although in some cases (e.g. Turtur, Psittacula, Cardinalis) their current application is different from that which would be required if Brisson were to be regarded as author. There are a number of other Brissonian substantives, formerly widely used as generic names under later binominal authorship, which were superseded (from twenty to fifty years ago) with the application of the rule of priority under the Régles. Authoritative ornithological literature long before the Reégles recognized that such generic names could not be credited to Brisson, 1760, for they were not genera in Brisson. In effect to invite applications for their restoration, through the device of crediting “‘ Cacatua ’’ to Brisson 1760, would be the greatest disservice to nomenclatural stability. Cacatua of Vieillot. The first valid generic usage of Cacatua was by Vieillot, admittedly credited by him to Brisson, 1817 (Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. 17 : 6). Although some nineteenth century authors credited the name to Brisson (especially in the period before there was crystallization and general consensus on nomenclatural principles), by the latter nineteenth century, the nomen- claturally more authoritative works credited Vieillot (rather than Brisson) with authorship of the genus Cacatua (e.g. Gray, 1870, ‘‘ Handlist of Genera and Species of Birds ”; Meyer and Wigglesworth, 1898, “ Birds of the Celebes ”’; Waterhouse, 1899, “‘ Index Generum Avium”’; Salvadori, 1901, “‘ Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum ”’, vol. 20 (Psittacidae); Sharpe, 1901, “‘ Handlist of Genera and Species of Birds ’’; Sherborn, 1902, “‘ Index Animalium 1758— 1800”). After the general acceptance of the Régles, enunciating the principle of strict priority (and disregarding such factors as correct classical construction, appropriateness, and the original describer’s preference), it became evident that Vieillot’s name was not the earliest, although the availability of the others was questioned for lack of adequate diagnoses.* Ultimately, under Opinion 39 of 1912, dealing with Cuvier’s ‘“‘ Legons d’Anat Comp.” 1800, Kakatoe of Cuvier appeared to be the earliest available (see discussion below). Never- theless a number of authors, especially those writing on the birds of the 8 As pointed out in the application, Z.N.(S.) 1647, other names (subsequent to Kakatoe Cuvier 1800 and before Cacatua Vieillot 1817) had appeared in the literature : Cacatoés Dumeéril 1806, Catacus Rafinesque 1815, and Plyctolophus Vieillot 1816. All three names have been attacked as objectionable, and, so far as we know, they have not been used in literature of the past fifty years, except for Cacatoés Duméril, which was briefly favored by Mathews and a number of others during the first quarter of this century, until it became known that the earlier Kakatoe Cuvier had been declared available. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159 Papuan area, continued to use Cacatua, taking the view that Kakatoe was a nomen nudum and that earlier usage should prevail (apparently despite Com- mission Opinions 39 and 37; see Mayr, 1937, Amer. Mus. Novit. no. 947 : 6). The extensive use of Cacatua has continued to date. Indeed the name has gained recently, for (as mentioned in the application) several influential Australian ornithologists, who had formerly employed Kakatoe, have since 1962 switched over to Cacatua. This is important, as the genus is essentially a group of the Papuan and Australian areas and the Australians, in the past, were the chief supporters of Kakatoe. Moreover a number of widely used works (some of them popular, but still important) use Cacatua (Mayr, 1941, ** List of New Guinea Birds ”; Delacour and Mayr, 1946, “‘ Birds of Malyasia ”’; Delacour, 1947, ‘“‘ Birds of the Philippines ’’; Gilliard, 1958, “‘ Living Birds of the World ”’; Austin, 1961, ‘‘ Birds of the World ”’). Kakatoe of Cuvier. The generic name Kakatoe appears in table 2 of the tables classifying the entire animal kingdom (down to genera) in Cuvier’s 1800 *“Lecons d’Anatomie Comparée,” at the end of vol. 1. In these tables the Latin generic names are accompanied by French equivalents, but by no diagnoses. Many zoologists regarded these names as nomina nuda in Cuvier (see Sherborn, 1902, ‘‘ Index Animalium ”’). However in 1912 the International Commission ruled unanimously in Opinion 39 (Smiths. Publ. no. 2060, p. 91) that the Cuvier generic names in the tables were available (i.e. not nomina nuda), where by the accompanying French names they could be identified in the published works listed by Cuvier in the introduction to his Legons* (and pro- vided they were not junior homonyms or synonyms). As a result of this Opinion, a number of the Cuvier names in the tables (not previously published) have become the current generic names, not only in ornithology but in other fields of zoology.® Mathews in 1917 (Birds of Australia 6 : (2) 160-164) clearly explained why under Opinion 39 Kakatoe Cuvier became the earliest available name. Consistently thereafter he used that name. The Australian Checklist Committee, which prepared the 1925 “ Official Checklist of Birds of Australia,” adopted Kakatoe. Thereafter, at least until about 1962, it appears to have been used by all Australian authors. J. L. Peters in 1937 adopted Kakatoe in ** Check-list of Birds of the World,”’ vol. 3. Following Peters a very substantial literature (some of it popular), in addition to the Australian, has adopted that name (e.g. Berlioz, 1950, in Grassé, ‘‘ Traité de Zoologie,’’® 15 : 935 ; Duke 4 Whether this would be a sufficient “‘indication’’ under the new Code (cf Art. 16(a) (i) and Art. 16 (b) (i)) is unnecessary to decide, for under Art. 86(a) previous Commission decisions remain effective as to the particular work involved. The present proposal avoids any such issue. 5 We have not cross-checked all the names in the Cuvier tables to determine how many were new (most were not). However, in addition to Kakatoe, in ornithology Psittacula Cuvier has become current (apparently used by everyone), and in mammalogy Preromys Cuvier (Old World flying-squirrels) —both based on the tables of the Legons. * The conflict of usage is indicated by the fact that in this same volume two other writers used Cacatua (without indicating authorship) and one of these writers used both Cacatua and Kakatoe. 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of Bedford, 1954, “‘ Parrots and Parrot-like Birds ’’; Rand and Rabor, 1962, “* Birds of the Philippine Islands: etc.” Fieldiana Zool. 35 (7) : 331; Thomson et al., 1964, “‘ A New Dictionary of Birds”; Fisher and Peterson, 1964, “‘ The World of Birds ’’). Solution of the Problem Whatever may be the technical merits, a current conflict of usage unquestion- ably exists. This requires action by the International Commission for its solution. The course adopted should be that most likely to achieve universality of usage in the particular case and least likely to have collateral unsettling effects on other current names. Cacatua of Vieillot was undoubtedly the prevailing name in the literature of at least the second half of the nineteenth and the early twentieth century. Cacatua has continued to be used by a substantial number of distinguished ornithologists who reject Kakatoe of Cuvier. The Australian students, who since 1925 have been the chief users of Kakatoe, seem now prepared—to judge from recent publications of several of their most influential ornithologists—to accept Cacatua if the Commission so rules.? Hence there is reason to believe that if Cacatua Vieillot is declared a nomen conservandum, as a means of ending a conflict of usage, the decision will meet general acceptance. On the other hand, use of the plenary power to turn “‘ Cacatua ”’ Brisson into a generic name as of 1760 would have broadly unfortunate results: (a) it would tend to undermine stability of other names by encouraging attempts to attribute Brissonian generic authorship, and thus priority, to the numerous other substantives of identical Brissonian status, which have been superseded within the past fifty years; (b) it would tend to defeat the very objective of attaining universality by stimulating very strong and justified objections as a matter of general principle. For it is clear: (1) that “ Cacatua’’ was not regarded as a genus by Brisson; (2) that even before the Régles the nomen- claturally most authoritative literature did not credit Cacatua to Brisson; 7 See footnote 1 as to Australian vote in favor of Cacatua of Vieillot. ® The very fact that the application cites the supposed special case of ‘“‘Gallinago Brisson”’ as a precedent shows how one exception invites applications for others, and can be self-defeating of a meritorious purpose. Over a generation ago the Commission ruled that Gallinago Koch was the valid generic name of the snipe. Later the prior name ‘“‘Capella’’ of Frenzel was dis- covered and was adopted by many ornithologists who considered that under the then rules the earlier decision no longer applied (as well as those who did not adheretothe International Rules). To settle the conflict the Commission felt that its earlier validation of Gallinago should be upheld. But instead of simply ruling that Koch’s name was a nomen conservandum, it adopted the unnecessary device of creating priority for Gallinago by validating it as a genus of Brisson, 1760—which in fact it was not, and which was opposed by ornithological usage and the rationale of Opinion 37. The Brissonian aspect of the decision was strongly attacked (Wetmore, 1958, Ibis 100 : 125-127 ; but cf. Mayr, 1963, Ibis 105 : 402-403). Objection to the Brissonian decision caused the questionable nature of Frenzels ‘‘Capella’” to be disregarded. As a result the intended universality failed of achievement, for two among the works most influential in determining usage declined to accept the Commission’s decision : the American Ornitho- logists’ Union’s “‘Check-list of Birds of North America,”’ 1957, and Ripley’s “‘Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan,” 1961. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161 (3) that under the Régles and the Code “ Cacatua ” has no nomenclatural status as a name of Brisson; and (4) that the Commission has repeatedly ruled that only the 115 true genera of Brisson have nomenclatural status. The Commission can avoid opening up a Pandora’s box of Brissonian problems by simply validating Cacatua Vieillot, 1817, as a nomen conservandum. Under the Code such action is effective regardless of prior names, known or unknown (Code Art. 23(a) (ii)). If, as seems probable, Australian ornitho- logists now find Cacatua acceptable, such action should terminate the existing conflict of usage. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary Powers to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) Kakatoe Cuvier, 1800 (Legons d’ Anatomie Comparée | : tab. 2); (b) Cacatoés Duméril, 1806 (Zoologie Analytique : 50); (c) Catacus Rafinesque, 1815 (Analyse de Nature : 64): (d) Plyctolophus Vieillot, 1816 (Analyse : 26, 70); (2) to place the generic name Cacatua Vieillot, 1817, based on “ Cacatua ” Brisson, 1760, Ornithologie 4 : 204 = Psittacus albus P. L. S. Miiller, 1776, Systema Naturae Suppl. : 76, no. 50, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name albus P. L. S. Miiller, 1776, Systema Naturae Suppl. : 76, no. 50, as published in the binomen Psittacus albus, type of the genus Cacatua Vieillot, 1817, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; : (4) to place the generic names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress J. P. Dorst, Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France. E. Eisenmann, American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A. F. Salomonsen, Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark. K. H. Voous, Zodlogisch Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands. C. Vaurie, American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A. Chairman. 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 736 FLEXICALYMENE SHIRLEY, 1936 (TRILOBITA): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES RULING.—(1) The generic name Flexicalymene Shirley, 1936 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Calymene caractaci Salter, 1865, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1679. (2) The specific name caractaci Salter, 1865, as published in the combination Calymene blumenbachii var. caractaci (type-species of Flexicalymene Shirley, 1936) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2083. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1529) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in March 1962 by Professor H. B. Whittington. Prof. Whittington’s application was sent to the printer on 21 May 1962 and was published on 11 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 157-158. The application was supported by Dr. C. J. Stubble- field. : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)25 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 157-158. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Mayr, Simpson, Bonnet, do Amaral, Lemche, Riley, Uchida, Miller, Obruchev, Vokes, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Evans, Holthuis, Ride, Binder, Kraus, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado. Negative votes—two (2): Sabrosky, Brinck. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. Commissioners Stoll and Borchsenius returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (17.ii.65): “ I vote against this proposal because of my belief that the overburdened Commission and staff should not be bothered with such unnecessary proposals. The situation involves subjective synonymy, and any author who regards Orimops as unrecognizable is free to disregard Fisher’s (1957) synonymy and to adopt Flexicalymene without bothering the Commission.” Dr. Per Brinck (24.ii.65): “ I am afraid I cannot accept the details presented by Dr. Whittington as a basis of any action of the Commission. Data as regards Orimops are insufficient.” Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163 REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: caractaci, Calymene blumenbachii var., Salter, 1865, Mon. Brit. Trilobites: 96 Flexicalymene Shirley, 1936, Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 92 : 395 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)25 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com- mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 736. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 March 1965 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 737 BIRONELLA GRACILIS THEOBALD, 1905 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby Ruled that Bironella gracilis Theobald, 1905, is not invalidated by its senior secondary homonym Anopheles gracilis Donitz, 1902. (2) The generic name Bironella Theobald, 1905 (gender: feminine), type- species, by monotypy, Bironella gracilis Theobald, 1905, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1680. (3) The specific name gracilis Theobald, 1905, as published in the binomen Bironella gracilis (type-species of Bironella Theobald, 1905) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2084. (4) The specific name bironelli Christophers, 1924, as published in the binomen Anopheles bironelli (a junior objective synonym of gracilis, Bironella, Theobald, 1905) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 820. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1244) The present application was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Elizabeth N. Marks, Dr. I. M. Mackerras, Mr. D. J. Lee and Dr. M. O. T. Iyengar in September 1957. The application was sent to the printer on 27 July 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 206-209. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publica- tions (Constitution Art. 12b: Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven ento- mological serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. Donald H. Collness, Dr. H. A. Standfast, Dr. A. R. Woodhill, Dr. W. Peters, Dr. P. F. Mattingly, Professor John N. Belkin, Dr. R. Slooff, Dr. J. H. Hitchcock, Dr. J. van den Assem and Prof. Kenneth L. Knight. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)28 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 207. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Mayr, Simpson, Bonnet, do Amaral, Riley, Uchida, Miller, Obruchev, Vokes, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Ride, Brinck, Binder, Kraus, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado. Negative votes—four (4): Lemche, Evans, Sabrosky, Holthuis. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. Commissioners Stoll and Borchsenius returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165 Prof. Ernst Mayr (10.xii.64): ‘‘ However, I vote against the wording. The arbitrary action of the Editorial Committee to put the words ‘ after 1960’ into Article 59c will continue to cause us much trouble. Secondary homonymy is a matter of taxonomic judgment and to hold one person’s bad judgment nomenclaturally binding on all those disagreeing with him is strictly in conflict with the taxonomic freedom provision of the Preamble. The fact that virtually all dipterologists (and all after 1938) have continued to use the name gracilis in spite of the alleged secondary homonymy is further proof that the provisions of 59c have always been the majority practice in zoology and not only since 1960.” Dr. Henning Lemche (31.x1i.64): “‘ Acceptance of the proposals would mean that the Commission decided on the systematic validity of the genus Bironella.” Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (17.ii.65): “‘ It is my conviction that the Rules should be suspended to conserve a name only where the importance of the name is over-powering, or confusion really and demonstrably serious. Neither con- dition holds for Bironella gracilis. There will be no respect whatever for Code or Commission if Rules can be suspended easily for cases of essentially minor importance. “1. B. bironelli is adopted in the recent world catalog of the group: ‘A synoptic catalog of the mosquitoes of the world,’ by Stone, Knight, and Starcke (1959). **2. Under the Rules, the species in question should have been called bironelli ever since 1924, whether placed in Anopheles (subgenus Bironella) or in the genus Bironella. ‘**3. The species is not of medical or veterinary importance, and has no claim to special consideration on those grounds. **4. The species is not of overwhelming commonness or importance. It is of interest chiefly to specialists. From the figures in the application itself, including the correct uses, only fifty publications are cited (even counting two editions of one book, and listing two volumes of Theobald’s Monograph as separate works), and only 36 authors (even counting all joint authors), for over a half century of publication. “5. Three other uses of bironelli for the period in question have been called to my attention: ** 1929. Walch and Soesilo, Meded. Dienst. Volkgezondh. Ned. Indie 18 : 464 *© 1931. Strickland and Choudhury, Anoph. Larv.; Suppl. : 10 ** 1938. Hell, Meded. Dienst. Volkgezondh. Ned. Indie 27 : 477.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Bironella Theobald, 1905, Ann. Mus. nat. Hung. 3 : 69 bironelli, Anopheles, Christophers, 1924, Ind. Med. Res. Mem. 3 : 5, 16 gracilis, Bironella, Theobald, 1905, Ann. Mus. nat. Hung. 3 : 49 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)28 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 737. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary ; Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 19 May 1965 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167 OPINION 738 TRITURUS (GYRINOPHILUS) LUTESCENS RAFINESQUE, 1832 (AMPHIBIA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name /utescens Rafinesque, 1832, as published in the binomen Triturus lutescens, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name duryi Weller, 1930, as published in the binomen Pseudotriton duryi, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2085. (3) The specific name /utescens Rafinesque, 1832, as published in the bino- men Triturus lutescens (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 821. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1516) The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission by Dr. Ronald A. Brandon in January 1962. Dr. Brandon’s application was sent to the printer on 31 January 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 210-211. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Article 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two herpetological serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. Frank J. Kramer and Dr. Joseph T. Collins and Prof. Hobart M. Smith (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 10-12). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)29 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20: 211. At the close of the pres- cribed voting period on 1 March 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Mayr, Simpson, Bonnet, do Amaral, Lemche, Riley, Uchida, Obruchev, Vokes, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Brinck, Ride, Binder, Kraus, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado. Negative votes—four (4): Miller, Evans, Sabrosky, Holthuis. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. Commissioners Stoll and Borchsenius returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. A. H. Miller (1.1.65): “* I do not see that undue confusion would result from following the rules and the first reviser on only a subspecific name issue.” Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (17.ii.65): “* I am impressed by the well-reasoned argu- ments of Kramer and Collins that /utescens and duryi do not apply to the same Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature taxon. I would consider that /utescens is presently unrecognizable, and does not conflict with use of duryi. I would not suppress it at this time because a taxon to which it applied perfectly might yet be discovered, and the name could then be used.” Dr. L. B. Holthuis (22.11.65): “*‘ As the name duryi is (a) only a subspecific name (b) of relatively recent date, and (c) has been used relatively little (only 20 published references), it seems unjustified to use the plenary powers to save this name. The fact that the name /Jutescens is almost 100 years older than duryi makes it moreover a more stable name, the chance of senior synonyms being found is much smaller.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: duryi, Pseudotriton, Weller, 1930, Proc. Jr. Soc. nat. Sci. Cincinnati 1 (5-6) : 7 lutescens, Triturus, Rafinesque, 1832, Atlantic J. 1 (3) : 121 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)29 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 738. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 May 1965 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169 OPINION 739 SIGARA FABRICIUS, 1775, AND MICRONECTA KIRKALDY, 1897 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING.—(1) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Sigara Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1681); (b) Micronecta Kirkaldy, 1897 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Notonecta minutissima Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1682). (2) The specific name minutissima Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Notonecta minutissima (type-species of Micronecta Kirkaldy, 1897) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2086. (3) The generic name Corisa Amyot & Serville, 1843 (an unjustified emenda- tion of Corixa Geoffroy, 1762) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1764. (4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) CorrxipaE (correction of CORIXIDA) [Leach, 1815] (type-genus Corixa Geoffroy, 1762) (Name No. 395); (b) MICRONECTINAE Jaczewski, 1924 (type-genus Micronecta Kirkaldy, 1897) (Name No. 396). (5) The following amily-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) CoRIxIDA [Leach, 1815] (type-genus Corixa Geoffroy, 1762) (an incorrect original spelling for CORIXIDAE) (Name No. 417); (b) corisiDes Amyot & Serville, 1843 (type-genus Corisa Amyot & Serville, 1843) (a junior objective synonym of CORIXIDAE [Leach, 1815]) (Name No. 418). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1519) The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission by Professor T. Jaczewski in January 1962. A revised version of Professor Jaczewski’s application was sent to the printer on 21 May 1962, and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 212-214. The proposals were sup- ported by Dr. E. Wagner. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On | December 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)30 either for or against the Proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 213-214. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 1 March 1965 the State of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature China, Boschma, Mayr, Simpson, Bonnet, do Amaral, Jaczewski, Lemche, Riley, Uchida, Miller, Obruchev, Vokes, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Holthuis, Brinck, Ride, Binder, Kraus, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado. Negative votes—one (1): Evans. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. Commissioners Stoll and Borchsenius returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (17.11.65): “‘ 1 do not approve paragraph (3). (3) (a) is incorrect: there is no such thing as ‘ Sigara Leach, 1817 (a junior homonym. ..)’. That is merely an incorrect application by Leach of the name Sigara Fabricius, as Jaczewski makes clear in paragraph 5 of his application. ** Re (3) (b), 1 am opposed to placing unjustified emendations on the Official Index, thereby cluttering the Index with names that are invalid without action by the Commission.” Dr. L. B. Holthuis (22.11.65): “‘ If the name Sigara Leach, 1817, is only an incorrect usage by Leach, 1817, of the name Sigara Fabricius, 1775, it should not be placed on the Official Index.” Mr. Sabrosky and Dr. Holthuis are correct in their view of the status of ** Sigara Leach, 1817” and it was therefore decided that this name should not be placed on the Official Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Corisa Amyot & Serville, 1843, Hist. nat. Ins., Hémipt. : 445 CORISIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843, Hist. nat. Ins., Hémipt. : U1, 444 CORIXIDA [Leach, 1815], an incorrect original spelling for CORIXIDAE q.v. CORIXIDAE [Leach, 1815], in Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 9 (1) : 124 Micronecta Kirkaldy, 1897, Entomologist 30 : 260 MICRONECTINAE Jaczewski, 1924, Ann. Zool. Mus. Pol. N.H. 3 : 3 minutissima, Notonecta, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 439 Sigara Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 691 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)30 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis- sion, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 739. ° G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 May 1965 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171 OPINION 740 PISANIA BIVONA, 1832 (GASTROPODA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Pisania Bivona, 1832, made prior to that by Iredale, 1915, of Pisania striatula Bivona, 1832, are hereby set aside. (2) The generic name Pisania Bivona, 1832 (gender: feminine), type-species, under the plenary powers in (1) above, by designation by Iredale, 1915, Pisania striatula Bivona, 1832, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1683. (3) The specific name striata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Murex striata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2087. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1521) The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission by Dr. Harald A. Rehder in February 1962. Dr. Rehder’s application was sent to the printer on 9 March 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 215-216. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two malacological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)31 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 216. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 1 March 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Mayr, Simpson, Bonnet, do Amaral, Lemche, Riley, Uchida, Miller, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Vokes, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Holthuis, Brinck, Ride, Binder, Kraus, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado. Negative votes—one (1): Evans. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. Commissioners Stoll and Borchsenius returned late affirmative votes. In returning his vote, Mr. Sabrosky made the following comment: “ This is virtually a case of misidentified type-species, to be treated under Article 70a. The proposed action also agrees with the spirit, if not with the letter, of Article 69a(iv).” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Pisania Bivona, 1832, Effem. sci. lett. Sicilia 2 : 8 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature striata, Murex, Gmelin, 1791, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3530 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for the genus concerning in the present Ruling: For Pisania Bivona, 1832: Iredale, 1915, Trans. Proc. New Zealand Inst. 47 : 464 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)31 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 740. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 May 1965 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173 OPINION 741 CTENOPHTHALMUS KOLENATI, 1856 (INSECTA, SIPHONAPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Ctenophthalmus Kolenati, 1856, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Ctenophthalmus bisoctodentatus Kolenati, 1863, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus; (b) the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) musculi Kolenati, 1856, as published in the binomen Ctenophthalmus musculi; (ii) talpae Kolenati, 1856, as published in the binomen Ctenophthalmus talpae; (iii) unidentatus Kolenati, 1859, as published in the binomen Ctenoph- thalmus unidentatus; (iv) bisseptemdentatus Kolenati, 1863, as published in the binomen Ctenophthalmus bisseptemdentatus: (v) bisbidentatus Kolenati, 1859, as published in the binomen Ctenoph- thalmus bisbidentatus. (2) The generic name Ctenophthalmus Kolenati, 1856 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Ctenophthalmus bisoctodentatus Kolenati, 1863, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1684. (3) The specific name bisoctodentatus Kolenati, 1863, as published in the binomen Ctenophthalmus bisoctodentatus, as interpreted by the neotype desig- nated by Hopkins, 1963 (type-species of Ctenophthalmus Kolenati, 1856) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2088. (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Spalacopsylla Oudemans, 1906 (a junior objective synonym of Typhlo- psylla Taschenberg, 1880) (Name No. 1765); (b) Spalacopsylla Oudemans, 1908 (a junior objective synonym of Ctenoph- thalmus Kolenati, 1856, and a junior homonym of Spalacopsylla Oudemans, 1906) (Name No. 1766). (5) The following specific names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) musculi Kolenati, 1856, as published in the binomen Ctenophthalmus musculi (Name No. 822): es oe SE Shariati Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) talpae Kolenati, 1856, as published in the binomen Ctenophthalmus talpae (Name No. 823); (c) unidentatus Kolenati, 1859, as published in the binomen Ctenophthalmus unidentatus (Name No. 824); (d) bisseptemdentatus Kolenati, 1863, as published in the binomen Ctenoph- thalmus bisseptemdentatus (Name No. 825); (e) bisbidentatus Kolenati, 1859, as published in the binomen Ctenophthalmus bisbidentatus (Name No. 826). (5) The family-group name CTENOPHTHALMINAE Rothschild, 1915 (type- genus Ctenophthalmus Kolenati, 1856) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 397. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1523) The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission by Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins in March 1962. Mr. Hopkins’ application was sent to the printer on 9 March 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 217-223. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. Robert Traub (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 19). DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE On 1 December 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)32 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 222-223. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 1 March 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Mayr, Simpson, Bonnet, do Amaral, Lemche, Riley, Uchida, Miller, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Vokes, Tortonese, Evans, Sabrosky, Holthuis, Brinck, Ride, Binder, Kraus, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. Commissioners Stoll and Borchsenius returned late affirmative votes. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: bisbidentatus, Ctenophthalmus, Kolenati, 1859, Jh. k. k. mahr.schl.Ges. Ackerbau, Natur- und Landeskunde 1858 : 65 bisoctodentatus, Ctenophthalmus, Kolenati, 1863, Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 2 : 35, pl. 2, fig. 6 bisseptemdentatus, Ctenophthalmus, Kolenati, 1863, Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 2 : 36 Ctenophthalmus Kolenati, 1856, Parasiten der Chiroptern (Briinn ed.) : 33 CTENOPHTHALMINAE Rothschild, 1915, Ent. mon. Mag. 51 : 77 musculi, Ctenophthalmus, Kolenati, 1856, Parasiten der Chiroptern (Brinn ed.) : 33 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 Spalacopsylla Oudemans, 1906, Tijdschr. Ent. 49 : lxiii Spalacopsylla Oudemans, 1908, Ent. Ber., Amst. 2 : 219, 220 talpae, Ctenophthalmus, Kolenati, 1856, Parasiten der Chiroptern (Briinn. ed.) : 36 unidentatus, Ctenophthalmus, Kolenati, 1859, Jh. k. k. méhr. schl. Ges. Ackerbau, Natur- und Landeskunde 1858 : 65 The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for a species concerned in the present Ruling: For Ctenophthalmus bisoctodentatus Kolenati, 1863 : Hopkins, 1963, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 220, Pl. 4 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)32 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 741. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 May 1965 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 742 CERATOMYA SANDBERGER, 1864 (BIVALVIA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Ceratomya Sandberger, 1864, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Isocardia excentrica Roemer, 1836, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Ceratomya Sandberger, 1864 (gender: feminine), type-species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Jsocardia excentrica Roemer, 1836 (Name No. 1685); (b) Ceratomyopsis Cossmann, 1915 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Rollier, 1913, through Ceromyopsis de Loriol, 1897, Ceromyopsis helvetica de Loriol, 1897 (Name No. 1686). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) excentrica Roemer, 1836, as published in the binomen Jsocardia excentrica (type-species of Ceratomya Sandberger, 1864) (Name No. 2089); (b) helvetica de Loriol, 1897, as published in the binomen Ceromyopsis helveticus [sic] (type-species of Ceratomyopsis Cossmann, 1915) (Name No. 2090). (4) The family-group name CERATOMYIDAE Arkell, 1934 (type-genus Ceratomya Sandberger, 1864) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 398. (5) The family-group name CEROMYIDAE Fischer, 1887 (type-genus Ceromya Agassiz, 1842) (invalid because the name of its type-genus is a junior homonym) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 419. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1526) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. L. R Cox in March 1962. Dr. Cox’s application was sent to the printer on 21 May 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 224-226. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Con- stitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two malacological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 February 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)1 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 225-226. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 12 May 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177 Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Mayr, Binder, Riley, Vokes, Stoll, Holthuis, Obruchev, Simpson, Alvarado, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Uchida, do Amaral, Forest, Miller, Mertens, Ride, Kraus, Brinck, Sabrosky. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Bonnet, Borchsenius, Hubbs. Commissioners Evans, Boschma and Munroe returned late affirmative votes. In returning his vote, Dr. Obruchev pointed out that directions on the dates to be ascribed to Ceratomya Sandberger and to CERATOMYIDAE Arkell in para- graphs (2) (a) and (4) of the proposals were made in conformance with the deleted Article 39a of the Code, and that these directions should now also be deleted. Thus, Ceratomya and CERATOMYIDAE now take priority from the dates of their publication, and not from the dates of publication of the names they replace. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Ceratomya Sandberger, 1864, Wiirzburg. naturw. Z.5 : 16 CERATOMYIDAE Arkell, 1934, Brit. Corallian Lamellibr. (Mon. pal. Soc.) : 315 Ceratomyopsis Cossmann, 1915, Bull. Soc. nivern. Lett. Sci. (3) 15 : 7 CEROMYIDAE Fischer, 1887, Manuel Conchyl. : 1164 excentrica, Isocardia, Roemer, 1836, Versteinerungen des norddeutschen Oolithen- Gebirges : 106 helvetica, Ceromyopsis, de Loriol, 1897, Mém. Soc. pal. suisse 24 : 79 The following is the original references for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Ceratomyopsis Cossmann, 1915: Rollier, 1913, Mém. pal. Soc. suisse 39 : 269 (through Ceromyopsis de Loriol, 1897) CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)1 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 742. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 May 1965 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 743 XYLOCOPA LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Xilocopa Latreille, 1802, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Xylocopa Latreille, [1802-1803] (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation by Westwood, 1840, Apis violacea Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1687. (3) The specific name violacea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Apis violacea (type-species of Xylocopa Latreille, [1802-1803]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2091. (4) The generic name Yilocopa Latreille, 1802 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1767. (5) The family-group name xYLocopipDaE (correction of “‘ Des Xylocopites ”’) Lepeletier, 1841 (type-genus Xy/ocopa Latreille, [1802-1803]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 399. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1527) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Paul _ D. Hurd, Jr., in March 1962. Dr. Hurd’s application was sent to the printer on 21 May 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 227-228. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISON OF THE COMMISSION On 12 February 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)2 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 227-228. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 12 May 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Mayr, Binder, Riley, Vokes, Stoll, Holthuis, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Simpson, Alvarado, Tortonese, Uchida, do Amaral, Forest, Miller, Mertens, Kraus, Brinck, Sabrosky. Negative votes—one (1): Ride. Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Bonnet, Borchsenius, Hubbs, Munroe. Commissioners Evans and Boschma returned late affirmative votes. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179 In returning his vote Prof. G. G. Simpson made the following comment: “On the evidence submitted, there seems to be a prima facie case that the result sought would follow from application of Art. 32a (ii) and other provi- sions of the Code. The invocation of plenary powers seems almost frivolous and should be discouraged in such cases, but at this point the harm is done.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: violacea, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 578 Xilocopa Latreille, 1802, Hist. nat. Fourmis : 432 Xylocopa Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 379 XYLOCOPIDAE Lepeletier, 1841, Hist. nat. Ins., Hyménopt. 2 : 147 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for the genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Xylocopa Latreille, [1802-1803]: Westwood, 1840, Introd. mod. Classif. Ins., Gen. Synopsis : 86 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)2 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 743. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Z oological Nomenclature London 24 May 1965 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 744 ABLABES CHINENSIS GUNTHER, 1889 (REPTILIA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name sumichrasti Bocourt, 1886, as published in the binomen Henicognathus sumichrasti, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name sumichrasti Bocourt, 1886, as published in the binomen Henicognathus sumichrasti (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 827. (3) The specific name chinensis Giinther, 1889, as published in the binomen Ablabes chinensis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2092. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1532) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor Hobart M. Smith in May 1962. Professor Smith’s application was sent to the printer on 27 July 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 229. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two herpetological serials. No comment was received. DECISON OF THE COMMISSION On 12 February 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)3 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 229. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 12 May 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Mayr, Binder, Riley, Vokes, Stoll, Holthuis, Obruchev, Simpson, Alvarado, Tortonese, Uchida, Jaczewski, do Amaral, Forest, Miller, Mertens, Ride, Brinck, Sabrosky. Negative votes—one (1): Kraus. Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Bonnet, Borchsenius, Hubbs. Commissioners Evans, Boschma and Munroe returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. Otto Kraus (10.v.65): “‘ There is no note in the original application giving information upon usage and importance of the name chinensis Giinther, 1889.” Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (11.v.65): “‘ I vote for this reluctantly. Dr. Smith has not demonstrated that the name chinensis .is of such importance as to merit conservation. ‘ Universally accepted ’ may imply this, but even the name of a rare species could be so referred to.” Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: chinensis, Ablabes, Giinther, 1889, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6)4 : 220 sumichrasti, Henicognathus, Bocourt, 1886, Mission scientifique au Mexique (10) : 628-630, pl. 41, fig. 5 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)3 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 744, G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 May 1965 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 745 COLUBER SUBOCULARIS BROWN, 1901 (REPTILIA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby Ruled that the specific name subocularis Brown, 1901, as published in the binomen Coluber subocularis, is not invalidated by its senior secondary homonym Bascanion suboculare Cope, 1866. (2) The specific name subocularis Brown, 1901, as published in the binomen Coluber subocularis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2093. (3) The specific name sclerotica Smith, 1941, as published in the binomen Elaphe sclerotica (a junior objective synonym of subocularis, Coluber, Brown, 1901) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 828. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1534) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor Hobart M. Smith in May 1962. Professor Smith’s application was sent to the printer on 27 July 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 231. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two herpetological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 February 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)5 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 231. At the close of the prescribed period on 12 May 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Mayr, Binder, Vokes, Stoll, Obruchev, Simpson, Alvarado, Tortonese, Uchida, Jaczewski, do Amaral, Forest, Miller, Mertens, Ride, Kraus, Brinck, Sabrosky. Negative votes—two (2): Riley, Holthuis. Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Bonnet, Borchsenius, Evans, Hubbs. Commissioners Boschma and Munroe returned late affirmative votes. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: sclerotica, Elaphe, Smith, 1941, Copeia 1941 : 135-136 subocularis, Coluber, Brown, 1901, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1901 : 492 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)5 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 745. G. OWEN EVANS W.. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 May 1965 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 746 SPILOTES MELANURUS DUMERIL, BIBRON & DUMERIL, 1854 (REPTILIA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby Ruled that the specific name melanurus Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, as published in the binomen Spilotes melanurus, is not invalidated by its senior secondary homonym Coluber melanurus Schlegel, 1837. (2) The specific name melanurus Dumeéril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, as published in the binomen Spilotes melanurus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2094. (3) The specific name melanocercus Smith, 1941, as published in the com- bination Drymarchon corais melanocercus (a junior objective synonym of melanurus, Spilotes, Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 829. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1535) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor Hobart M. Smith in May 1962. Professor Smith’s application was sent to the printer on 27 July 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 232-233. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. _21 : 184) and to two herpetological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 February 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)6 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 232-233. At the close of the voting period on 12 May 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Mayr, Binder, Vokes, Stoll, Obruchev, Simpson, Alvarado, Tortonese, Uchida, Jaczewski, do Amaral, Forest, Miller, Mertens, Ride, Kraus, Brinck, Sabrosky. Negative votes—two (2): Riley, Holthuis. Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Bonnet, Borchsenius, Hubbs. Commissioners Evans, Boschma and Munroe returned late affirmative votes. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: melanocercus, Drymarchon corais, Smith, 1941, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 31 : 473-474 melanurus, Spilotes, Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, Erp. Gén. 7 : 224-225 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)6 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 746. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 May 1965 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 747 RYGCHIUM SPINOLA, 1806 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): VALIDATION OF EMENDATION TO RHYNCHIUM RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the emendation to Rhynchium of the generic name Rygchium Spinola, 1806, is hereby validated. (2) The generic name Rhynchium (emend. of Rygchium) Spinola, 1806 (gender: neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Rygchium [sic] europaeum Spinola, 1806, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1688. (3) The specific name oculata Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Vespa oculata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2095. (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Rygchium Spinola, 1806 (Ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling for Rhynchium) (Name No. 1768); (b) Rychium Billberg, 1820 (an incorrect spelling for Rhynchium Spinola, 1806) (Name No. 1769); (c) Rynchium Sturm, 1829 (an unjustified emendation of Rygchium Spinola, 1806) (Name No. 1770); (d) Rhygchium Saussure, 1853 (an incorrect spelling for Rhynchium Spinola, 1806) (Name No. 1771). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1540) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. J. van der Vecht in June 1962. Dr. van der Vecht’s application was sent to the printer on 27 July 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 234-235. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 12 February 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)7 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 235. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 12 May 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Mayr, Binder, Riley, Vokes, Stoll, Holthuis, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Simpson, Alvarado, Tortonese, Uchida, do Amaral, Forest, Mertens, Ride, Kraus, Brinck, Sabrosky. Negative votes—one (1): Miller. Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Bonnet, Borchsenius, Hubbs. Commissioners Evans, Boschma and Munroe returned late affirmative votes. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: oculata, Vespa, Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 1 : 463 Rhygchium Saussure, 1853, Et. Fam. Vesp. 1 : xxxi, 276 Rhynchium Spinola, 1806, Ins. Ligur. 1 : 84 Rychium Billberg, 1820, Enum. Ins. : 109 Rygchium Spinola, 1806, an incorrect original spelling for Rhynchium q.v. Rynchium Sturm, 1829, Verz. Ins. Nuernberg : 12 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)7 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 747. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 May 1965 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 748 EULACHNUS DEL GUERCIO, 1909 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES RULING.—(1) The generic name Eulachnus del Guercio, 1909 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Wilson, 1911, Lachnus agilis Kaltenbach, 1843, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1689. (2) The specific name agilis Kaltenbach, 1843, as published in the binomen Lachnus agilis (type-species of Eulachnus del Guercio, 1909) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2096. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1541) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in July 1962 by Dr. V. F. Easop as a proposal for the suppression under the plenary powers of Eulachnus del Guercio, 1909. Dr. Eastop’s application was sent to the printer on 27 July 1962 and was published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 236-237. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. Objections to Dr. Eastop’s proposals by Dr. D. Hille Ris Lambers and Dr. F. C. Hottes were published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21:2. As a result of these objections a revised proposal was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 325. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION (Z.N.(S.) 1541) On 12 February 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)8 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 325. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 12 May 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Mayr, Binder, Munroe, Riley, Vokes, Stoll, Obruchev, Simpson, Alvarado, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Uchida, do Amaral, Forest, Miller, Mertens, Ride, Kraus, Binder, Sabrosky. Negative votes—one (1): Holthuis. Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Bonnet, Borchsenius, Hubbs. Commissioners Evans and Boschma returned late affirmative votes. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: agilis, Lachnus, Kaltenbach, 1843, Mon. Phytophthires : 161-162 Eulachnus del Guercio, 1909, Redia 5 : 315 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for the genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Eulachnus del Guercio, 1909: Wilson, 1911, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 4 : 54 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)8 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis- sion, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 748. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Z oological Nomenclature London 26 May 1965 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LEPUS DOUGLASII GRAY, 1837 (MAMMALIA): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL INDEX AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1696 By Charles A. Long (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.) Article 23(b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, requires that a nomen oblitum, if discovered, be referred to the Commission in order that the name may be rejected or conserved in the interest of maintaining nomenclatural stability. The purpose of this notice is to bring to the attention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the species- group name douglasii Gray, 1837 (Magazine of Natural History, Charlesworth, (N.S.) 1 : 586), published in the combination ““ LEPUS Douglasii,’ because it is a nomen oblitum which if made available would lead toward nomenclatural instability. I therefore propose that the name be rejected. 2. The name douglasii was based on two specimens described as varieties l and 2. Gray (Joc. cit.) stated that variety 1 was “‘ rather larger” and that variety 2 had softer, blacker fur and hairier soles. The latter variety, perhaps also the former, was mentioned as “ from California ’’; the distribution was given as North America, Texas. A question mark was placed before the phrase, ‘‘ called the Marsh hare.” The date of publication is 1837, and Water- house (A Nat. Hist. Mammalia 2 : 112, 1848) said Gray’s publication was “‘ for November ”’. 3. Bachman (J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 8 : 79, 1839) listed ‘“‘ LEPUS Douglasii, (Gray)”’ as a synonym of his Lepus palustris Bachman, 1837, mentioning that his description was read May 10, 1836, whereas Gray’s paper was read November, 1837. In his description of Lepus [ = Sylvilagus] bachmani Waterhouse (Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1838 : 103) compared this kind with one of the rabbits named by Gray. Waterhouse referred to Gray’s rabbit as “* Lep. palustris”’. 4. Bachman’s concept of Sylvilagus palustris (Bachman) was, initially, fairly accurate (J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 7 (2) : 194-199, 1837), for he ascribed Florida and South Carolina to the geographic range of this species. He subsequently and incorrectly mentioned that Texas was inhabited by palustris, basing his opinion on observations of Audubon and one specimen of the two described by Gray as douglasii (see Bachman, 1839, Joc. cit.; and Audubon and Bachman, The viviparous Quadrupeds of North America 1 : 151, 1854). Sylvilagus palustris (Bachman) does not occur in Texas, nor west of Alabama (Nelson, N. Amer. Fauna 29 : 266-270, 1909; Hall and Kelson, The Mammals of North America 1 : 259, 1959). 5. It is extremely doubtful that Gray’s rabbits were obtained by David Douglas from as far east as Alabama, or farther. Identification of both syn- types are important because douglasii is a nomen dubium. Waterhouse (1848, op. cit. : 112-115, 119-122) placed variety 1 of Gray in the synonymy of Lepus aquaticus Bachman, 1837. He stated (p. 114) that Gray’s variety 1 was from ‘** Texas?’’, and, further, that Bachman had examined the specimen and Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. amen Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19] house: “‘... the greater harshness of the fur, and the tail being pure white Nelson (op. cit., pp. 270-272) listed douglasii in the Synonymy of aguaticus with a question mark. He stated, “ The exact status of douglasii appears to be still unsettled.” Dr. G. B. Corbet, British Museum (Natural History), in his Both had previously “‘ been labelled S. aquaticus”’. He compared the syntypes to one specimen of S. palustris and three of S. aquaticus, and “‘ using the key in Hall and Kelson both of the douglasii go Straight to S. aquaticus”. In the aquaticus. Tails are brownish or soiled grey and brown below in palustris. Only rarely are tails of aquaticus washed with pale brownish below; the holo- type of S. aquaticus littoralis shows such a tinge. The key character of white tail in aquaticus is judged valid. Therefore, douglasii is referred to Sylvilagus aquaticus. 6. There is no evidence that the description of aquaticus appeared before that of douglasii. The former was read March 21, 1837, whereas the latter the dates of publication of palustris and douglasii are “ nearly the same ”’, There is no evidence, to my knowledge, showing that douglasii is younger than aquaticus. 7. Perhaps douglasii was based upon a specimen(s) referable to a Texan subspecies of aquaticus known as Sylvilagus aquaticus littoralis Nelson, 1909 To place the specific name douglasii Gray, 1837, as published in the binomen Lepus douglasii, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as a nomen oblitum. 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANTHANASSA SCUDDER, 1875, (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA)*: PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1697 By F. Martin Brown (Fountain Valley School, Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) In 1945, Forbes erected the genus Tritanassa, type-species drusilla Felder, 1861, to accommodate the Melitaea texana Edwards, 1863, group of species. Previously this taxon had been placed in Anthanassa Scudder, 1875. Scudder specifically named, as the type-species of his genus, Eresia cincta Edwards, 1864. He listed two species in the genus Anthanassa. These are texana Edwards, with cincta Edwards and smerdis Hewitson, 1864, as synonyms, and punctata Edwards, 1871. 2. It is puzzling why Scudder should name as the type-species of his new genus a taxon that he considered to be a synonym of one of the species he included in the new genus. Edwards’ original description of cincta does not support such synonymy. The name applies to a butterfly that is related to or synonymous with /eucodesma Felder, 1861. This is made abundantly clear in a footnote to the original description of cincta. Scudder’s synopsis of the characteristics of Anthanassa does not fit cincta Edwards but does fit texana Edwards. It is obvious that Scudder misidentified the name cincta Edwards. 3. The confusion of cincta with texana is not the responsibility of Scudder, but of W. H. Edwards. After he had described cincta Edwards returned the syntypes to their owner. This person or institution is not now known. It is surmised to have been either a member of the Entomological Society of Phila- delphia, or the cabinet of that Society. A thorough search of material in American museums and many privately held collections has failed to reveal any of the syntypes of the name cincta Edwards. The search did produce a specimen bearing a holograph label of Edwards, “ cincta”’, on a specimen of texana in the collection of Mr. Roderick R. Irwin, of Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Irwin is preparing a note to be published about the Edwardsian material in his collection. The history of these specimens will be detailed there. The speci- mens were labelled by Edwards after he had described Erebia rhodia in 1871, and before his discovery that this taxon had been named previously epipsodea by Butler. Edwards learned of the synonymy from Butler before 1875. In that year he used epipsodea in a list of butterflies appended to Mead’s account of the butterflies collected by the Wheeler Expeditions. 4. Edwards freely admitted to Henry Edwards in numerous letters that he had difficulty remembering what he had named once the original types left his hands. Thus by 1871, W. H. Edwards had mentally transferred the name cincta to texana. In his catalogue of 1884, Edwards placed cincta as a synonym of texana, clear indication of his continued confusion of the two names. Edwards frequently sent determined material to Scudder and Scudder visited Edwards in * This study was made with support from the National Science Foundation, GB 2741. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 193 Coalburgh, West Virginia. It is not difficult to see how Scudder was misled and confused cincta and texana. 5. It is apparent that in 1945, Forbes took at face value Scudder’s designa- tion of cincta as the type-species for Anthanassa. It is equally apparent that he did realize that a misidentification was involved. He wrote: “* The following groups form a distinct subgenus, for which | have not found a valid name, though if cincta were a Synonym of texana as formerly supposed, instead of leucodesma, Anthanassa would have been available for it.” At the time that Forbes wrote this there was nothing he could do but accept cincta Edwards as the type-species of Anthanassa. There was no way for him to get around the clear fact that Scudder had misidentified the name cincta. It was with some 6. Thus, since cincta Scudder (not Edwards) = texana Edwards, the type-species of Anthanassa is in reality texana Edwards. Article 70 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1964) is designed to be used in such a case. Three solutions to the problem are allowed by the Code: first to correct the identity of the type-species (70 (a) (i); second, in case the identity is doubtful, to select a type-species in keeping with use of the generic name (70 (a) (ii)); and third, to adhere to the original type-species name and ignore the misidentification (70 (a) (iii)). Forbes, unknowingly, applied the third choice with reluctance. 7. Article 70 of the Code requires that cases involving the misidentification of the type-species of a generic name be submitted to the Commission for adjudication. I do this with the recommendation that Article 70 (a) (i) be applied and that the type-species of Anthanassa Scudder, 1875, be fixed as Melitaea texana Edwards, 1863. Forbes’s “ Group 6” which he placed in the genus Eresia Boisduval, and Scudder’s original conception of the genus is lost. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Anthanassa Scudder, 1875, made Prior to the Ruling (2) to place Anthanassa Scudder, 1875 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Melitaea texana Edwards, 1863 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (3) to place texana Edwards, W. H., 1863, as published in the binomen Melitaea texana (type-species of Anthanassa Scudder, 1875) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REFERENCES 1964. ‘* International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted by the XV Inter- national Congress of Zoology.’ Revised edition, London Epwarps, WILLIAM H. 1863. Original description of texana. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, 2 : 81 —— 1864. Original description of cincta. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, 2 : 502 — 1871. Original description of punctata. Transaction of the American Ento- mological Society, 3 : 191-192 —— 1884. “ Revised catalogue of the Diurnal Lepidoptera of America north of Mexico.” Transaction of the American Entomological Society, 11 : 245-337 — MSS—letters to Henry Edwards. Library of American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y. Dos Passos, CyriL F. 1964. ‘A synonymic list of the nearctic Rhopalocera.” Memoir No. 1, The Lepidopterists’s Society. 145 pp. FELDER, CAJETAN. 1861. Original descriptions of /eucodesma and drusilla. Wiener entomologische Monatschrift, 5 : 103 Forses, WILLIAM T. M. 1945. Original description of Tritanassa. Entomologica Americana, 24 (n.s.) : 171 HEWITSON, WILLIAM C. 1864. Original description of smerdis. Exotic Butterflies 3 : Eresia 5, f. 33, 34 MEAD, THEODORE L. 1875. ‘‘ Report upon the collection of diurnal Lepidoptera, etc. etc.” Chapter VIII, Vol. 5, Zoology, Surveys West of 100th Meridian, Washington, D.C., esp. p. 793 ScuDDER, SAMUEL H. 1875. Original description of Anthanassa. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural History, 2 : 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195 APHELENCHUS STEUERI STEFANSKI, 1916 (NEMATODA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.NAS.) 1698 By S. A. Sher (University of California, Riverside, California, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to stabilize the name of a well- known economic pest by asking that the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature use its plenary powers to suppress the name Aphelenchus steueri Stefanski, 1916. 1. Aphelenchus steueri Stefanski, 1916 (Zool. Anz., Leipzig, 46: 383) was proposed as a synonym of Tylenchorhynchus robustus var. brevicaudatus (de Man, 1876) Micoletzky, 1922 (Arch. Naturg., Berlin, 87A : 650). Goffart in 1930 (Monographien zum Planzenschutz, hrsg. von H. Morstatt, Berlin, 105 pp.) listed this species as a synonym of Tylenchus robustus de Man, 1876 (Tijdschr. Nederl. Dierk. Ver. 2 : 78-196) and Loof & Oostenbrink in 1958 (Nematologica 3 : 34-43) placed A. steueri in species inquirendae. 2. Type specimens of A. steueri have not been found (personal visit to University of Innsbruck) and are presumed to be unavailable. Specimens were collected by the author at the type locality of A. steueri and identified as Helicotylenchus steueri (Stefanski, 1916) Sher, 1961 (Nematologica 6 : 155-169). Subsequent study of these specimens revealed that two genera (Rotylenchus Filipjev, 1936 and Helicotylenchus Steiner, 1945) were present representing five described species. Although Stefariski’s original description and illustration are considered inadequate for a proper identification, the measurements and mention of “ chitinous hooks ” at the vulva (=epiptygma) most closely fit the genus Rotylenchus. Of the three species of Rotylenchus, found at the type locality Stefariski’s description, illustrations, and measurements most closely fit Rotylenchus buxophilus Golden, 1956 (Maryland Ag. Exp. Sta. Bull. A-85, 28 pp., 1956). This species is considered adequately described, illustrated and documented with a holotype and numerous well preserved paratypes (Nemato- logica 10: in press). R. buxophilus is an economic root parasite and this name is in wide use (Christie, 1959, Plant Nematodes, Univ. of Florida; Thorne, 1961, Principles of Nematology, N.Y., McGraw-Hill). 3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name steueri Stefanski, 1916, as published in the binomen Aphelenchus steueri, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name buxophilus Golden, 1956, as published in the binomen Rotylenchus buxophilus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AMBLEMA RAFINESQUE, 1820 (LAMELLIBRANCHIATA): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST AND PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF AMBLEMA RAFINESQUE, 1819. Z.N.(S.) 1699 By Arthur H. Clarke, Jr. (National Museum of Canada, Ottawa, Canada) and William J. Clench (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass. 02138, U.S.A.) Since 1914,1 nearly all North American malacologists who have written on the Unionidae have used the nominate genus Amblema Rafinesque, 1819, with A. costata Rafinesque, 1820, as type, for a group of freshwater mussels collectively known as washboard clams. The species contained are dominant and conspicuous members of the American freshwater mollusk fauna and are of economic importance in the button industry. Recent application of the Rules has resulted in the replacement of Amblema with the name Crenodonta Schliiter, 1838. Such replacement is invalid, however, and unless Amblema is conserved by the International Commission a new generic name will be necessary. Details of the case are as follows: (1) In 1819, Rafinesque? first published the new nominal genus Amblema, with a brief description, and cited a single species, A. ovalis. A[mblema] ovalis was not described then nor subsequently and it is not recognizable from the short generic description. Amblema Rafinesque 1819, and A. ovalis Rafinesque, are therefore nomina dubia. (2) In 1820, Rafinesque® again published the generic name Amblema but with a different description. Included under Amblema were five new species, each with a description, but no type-species was indicated. The ‘‘ A. ovalis’’ mentioned by Rafinesque in 1819 was not included in 1820. The first valid subsequent type designation found for Amblema Rafinesque, 1820, is that by Frierson, 1914,1 who selected one of the originally included species, Amblema costata Rafinesque, 1820, as type-species. Subsequently (from 1919 to 1956) Amblema Rafinesque, 1819, with A. costata as type, was used incorrectly but universally in the literature. (3) In 1956, Clench and Turner* pointed out that Amblema Rafinesque, 1820, was a junior homonym of Amblema Rafinesque, 1819, and was therefore invalid. They substituted the next apparently available name, viz. Crenodonta Schliiter, 1838,> with C. plicata (Say) (Unio plicata Say) as type-species based on the subsequent designation of Simpson, 1900.6 Crenodonta Schliiter had been used previously by Simpson (1900, 1914),?7 by Ortmann (1912),8 and by other writers during that period. Since Unio plicata Say and Amblema costata Rafinesque are clearly congeneric,® Crenodonta Schliiter, 1838, was presumed to be a synonym of Amblema Rafinesque, 1820. (4) A previous valid type designation for Crenodonta, overlooked by Simpson® and by other workers, has now come to light. Herrmann- sen, 1852,1° designated as the type of Crenodonta another of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. thd G04 8 e4 er E> Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197 originally included species, viz. Crenodonta securis (Deshayes), 1830 (=Unio securis Lea, 1829).1 Unio securis is quite a different species from Unio plicata and is now included in the genus Plagiola Rafinesque, 1819. Crenodonta is therefore not applicable to the Unio plicata group and is not synonymous with Amblema Rafinesque, 1820. (5) In view of these difficulties which result in the Unio plicata group being legally nameless, in the interests of stability and uniformity, the International Commission is hereby requested: (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Amblema Rafinesque, 1819, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (b) to place the generic name Amb/ema Rafinesque, 1820 (gender: feminine) (type-species, by designation by Frierson, 1914, Amblema costata Rafinesque, 1820) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (c) to place the specific name costata Rafinesque, 1820, as published in the binomen Amblema costata (type-species of Amblema Rafinesque, 1820) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (d) to place the generic name Amb/ema Rafinesque, 1819 (as sup- pressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED 1 FRIERSON, L.S. 1914. Nautilus 28:7 ? RAFINESQUE, C. S. 1819. Journal des Physique de Chimie, d’Histoire Naturelle, (etc.) (Paris) 88 : 427 3—___ 1820. Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques (Bruxelles) 5 : 314 4 CLENCH, W. J., and TuRNER, R. D. 1956. Bull. Fla. State Mus., Biol. Sciences 1(3) : 156-7 ®> SCHLUTER, WILHELM. 1838. Kurzgefasstes systematisches Verzeichniss meiner Conchyliensammlung (etc.) (Halle), p. 33 § SIMPSON, C. T. 1900. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 22 : 766 7____ 1914. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naiades, or Pearly Fresh-Water Mussels; Bryant Walker, Detroit, p. 813 8 ORTMANN, A. E. 1912. Carnegie Mus., Annals 8 : 245 ® BAKER, F.C. 1928. Bull. Univ. of Wisconsin 70(2) : 76-83 CrLaRKE, A. H., Jr. and Berg, C.O. 1959. Cornell Univ., Memoir 367 : 21 10 HERRMANNSEN, A. N. 1852. Indicis Generum Malacozoorum, Supplementa et Corrigenda, (Cassellis), p. 38 1 LgA, Isaac. 1829. Trans. Amer. Philosophical Soc., n.s., 3(4) : 437 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature VOLUTA PERTUSA LINNAEUS, 1758; VOLUTA MORIO LINNAEUS, 1767; VOLUTA RUFFINA LINNAEUS, 1767; BULLA CONOIDEA LINNAEUS, 1767 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1700 By Walter O. Cernohorsky (Vatukoula, Fiji Islands) This communication requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to make use of its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, three specific names in the genus Voluta and one specific name in the genus Bulla as published by Linnaeus in the Systema Naturae, 1758 and 1767. 1. Voluta pertusa Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 732, No. 367. The original diagnosis is “‘ V. testa fusiformi striata punctis pertusis, labro denticulato ”’. The only infrageneric indication is “ Fusiformes”’. Figure H on pl. 54 in Gualtieri (1742, Index Testarum Conchyliorum quae adservantur in Museo Nicolai Gualtieri) is cited as an indication. No locality is given. In the 12th edition of the “‘ Systema’’, the indications “ emarginata ” and “columella quintuplicata’’ have been added. This additional indication combined with the original diagnosis are sufficient to identify the shell as a member of the genus Mitra Réding, 1798, but inadequate for an unequivocal specific identification. The cited delineation from Gulatieri (1742) also defies identification, and the figure cannot be associated with any known Mitra species with even a reasonable amount of certainty. Linnaeus described Voluta pertusa from the Museum Ludovicae Ulricae collection (1764, Museum s:ae r:ae m:tis Ludovicae Ulricae Reginae Svecorum : 596, No. 237), and in doing so, cited the full description which appeared later in the 12th edition of the “‘ Systema”. The subdescription is ‘‘ Habitus V. Mitrae, cujus forte sola varietas. Differt 1. quod brevior, crassior. 2. Fasciis longitudinalibus testaceo-fuscescentibus. 3. Striis exarata transversis ex punctis excavatis, sic etiam Mitra saepius striata est ”’. The Museum Ulricae description seems only to add to the confusion, and appears to describe a different species to that from the 10th edition of the “* Systema”. Dodge (1955, Bull. Amer, Mus. Nat. Hist. 107 : 117), treated Voluta pertusa Linnaeus, in great detail, and commented that ‘“‘ The details of the description might be used to describe two distinct species, Mitra cardinalis (Gmelin, 1791) and M. digitalis (Dillwyn, 1817) [=M. imperialis Réding, 1798], and both identifications have been proposed from time to time ”’. Mitra imperialis Roding is a species with distinct coronations at the sutures, however the important diagnostic phrase “ suturis crenulatis ” is lacking in all Linnaean descriptions of Voluta pertusa. These sutural crenulations are not discernible in the two views of the cited Gualtieri figure (1742). It is further doubtful that V. pertusa represents the same species as V. cardinalis Gmelin, since Linnaeus would not have failed to cite Figure G2 on pl. 53 from Gualtieri (1742); these two views of the shell are an extremely good representation of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199 species V. cardinalis Gmelin, and the figure has been cited by Gmelin for his species. Gmelin (1791, Systema Naturae Linnaei (ed. 13) 1 (6) : 3458) was equally confused about the true identity of Voluta pertusa, as he included no less than four different species under this name, i.e. V. cardinalis Gmelin, Mitra imperialis Roding, M. eremitarum Réding and M. contracta Swainson. Such confused usage of Voluta pertusa has persisted in literature almost to the present day. “A specimen of Mitra digitalis (=M. imperialis Réding) is found in the Linnaean collection in London, as well as an example of M. cardinalis, and these are the only two specimens that answer to the description of M. pertusa. As the name pertusa appears on the list of Linnaeus’ own shells, this is strong although not conclusive evidence that one of the two is the type ” (Dodge, 1955, 107 : 119). The reasons for considering Voluta pertusa Linnaeus as a doubtful species are summarized as follows: (1) The original diagnosis is fully inadequate for an unequivocal identi- fication. (2) The additional indication from the 12th edition of the “* Systema” does not shed any further light on the specific identity of the taxon, and the description from the Museum Ulricae strongly suggests that two different species have been combined under one description. (3) The only figure cited from Gualtieri (1742), represents an unidentifiable Mitra species. (4) The selection of a lectotype from the two different Mitra species present in the Linnaean collection at the Linnaean Society of London, is in view of the original description and figure citation an impossibility. Both these species, i.e. Mitra cardinalis (Gmelin) and M. imperialis Roding, respond to Linnaeus’ original diagnosis and subdescription in part only, and a choice of either as lectotype would be purely arbitrary. For these reasons it is advisable that the name Voluta pertusa Linnaeus, be suppressed as a nomen dubium. 2. Voluta morio Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 1193, No. 421. The original diagnosis is “‘ V. testa subemarginata fusiformi tereti laevi, colu- mella triplicata”’. The subdescription is ‘‘ Simillima V. caffrae, ut nota una nequeat non et altera dignosci: haec colore eodem fusco, ventre subtus cincto unica linea alba, qua etiam destituuntur spirae anfractus. Corpus testae duplo crassius, nec spira striatum. Columella absque omni labio interiore et dentibus Ss. plicis tantum 3, iisque parvis’’. Figures 21 and 22 on pl. 49 in Seba (1758, Locupletissimi rerum naturalium thesauri accurata descriptio) are cited as an indication. No locality is given. The original diagnosis is inadequate for identification. In the subdescrip- tion the species is stated to be similar to Voluta caffra Linnaeus, 1758, however, the phrase ‘“‘ Corpus testae duplo crassius, nec spira striatum ”’ disassociate the species from V. caffra. The Seba figures cited (1758), represent the species Voluta caffra Linnaeus, a species which is placed in the genus Vexi//um under Mitridae by most modern 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature taxonomists. The same Seba figures have been cited one page earlier (1767, 1 : 1192) as an indication for Voluta caffra by Linnaeus. Voluta morio is an almost forgotten species, mainly because it remained un- identifiable, and consequently has been little used in synonymy. Deshayes & Milne-Edwards (1845, Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertebres (ed. 2) 10 : 318-320) presumed the species to be a variant of Mitra caffra (Linnaeus). Hanley (1855, Jpsa Linnaei Conchylia : 229) thought the species to be possibly Turbinella leucozonalis Lamarck. However, one year later (1856, Hanley’s edition of Wood’s Index Testaceologicus an illustrated catalogue of British and Foreign shells : 104) Hanley suggested that the species is problaby Mitra caffra (Linnaeus). Dodge (1955, 107 : 114) who discussed the subject at length, suggested that the shell before Linnaeus was not even a Mitra and that the name should be dropped as undefined. There is no specimen conforming to the description of Voluta morio in the Linnean collection, and the species is not on the list of species owned by Linnaeus (Dodge, 1955). The species could have possibly been a beach-worn specimen of Mitra caffra (Linnaeus), or a dark-colored variant of Mitra vulpecula (Linnaeus). Linnaeus’ comparison of the species to his Voluta caffra, and citation of identical figures as for V. caffra, certainly suggest the species to be a species of the genus Mitra. The specific name Voluta morio is too doubtful to be retained, and should be suppressed as a nomen dubium for the following reasons: (1) The original diagnosis and subdescription are inadequate for an un- equivocal identification. Although the species has been compared by Linnaeus to Mitra caffra, certain phrases of the subdescription are incompatible with diagnostic characters of this species. (2) The cited figures from Seba (1758) have been previously used by Linnaeus an an indication for Voluta caffra, and indeed represent that species. (3) No specimen is available for selection as a lectotype. (4) The species has always remained unidentified, and consequently has been little used in literature. 3. Voluta ruffina Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 1192, No. 418. The original diagnosis is “‘ V. testa integriuscula fusiformi transversim rugosa, columella quadriplicata, labro crenulato’’. The subdescription is “‘ Similis V. scabriusculae, sed angustior, longior, passim incarnato-maculata. Cauda integra absque umbilico. Labrum recurvum, crenulatum tuberculis rotun- datis”’. Figure G on pl. 54 in Gualtieri (1742, Index Testarum Conchyliorum quae adservantur in Museo Nicolai Gualtieri) is cited as an indication. The locality is given as ‘‘ In India Orientali”’. The original diagnosis is inadequate for identification. In the subdescrip- tion the species is said to be similar to Voluta scabriuscula (originally established as Buccinum scabriculum Linnaeus, 1758), however, the Gualtieri figure cited (1742) bears little resemblance to this species. Furthermore, the phrase ““ transversim rugosa’ is incompatible with the cited figure, which depicts a shell which is finely transversely puncto-striate, and not spirally ridged. The outer lip is depicted as thickened and smooth, which is in direct contrast to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 phrase from the subdescription ‘* Labrum recurvum, crenulatum tuberculis rotundatis ”’. Gmelin (1791, Systema Naturae Linnaei 1 (6) : 3450) listed Voluta ruffina, however, referred to the Gualtieri (1742) indication with a query. Dillwyn (1817, A descriptive catalogue of recent shells arranged according to the Linnaean system, 1 : 545) associated V. ruffina Linnaeus with Mitra adusta Lamarck, 1811 (=M. eremitarum Réding, 1798). Deshayes & Milne-Edwards (1845, 10 : 304) suggested that Voluta ruffina could be either the Mitra versicolor Lamarck, 1811 (=Voluta nubila Gmelin, 1791), or even Voluta clathrus Gmelin, 1791. The authors, however, pointed out that “the identity of the species cannot be established because the description of Linnaeus is too short and is not accompanied by a sufficient synonymy ”’. Hanley (1855 : 227) identified Voluta ruffina as the species Mitra Jerruginea Lamarck, 1811, although he admitted that no specimen labelled Voluta ruffina was in the Linnean collection at the time it was examined by him. The species was figured by Hanley (pl. 4, fig. 5), however these figures do not appear to be conspecific with Mitra ferruginea Lamarck, as defined by the delineation in Chemnitz (1780, Conchylieni-Cabinet, 4 : 224, pl. 149, figs. 1380, 1381). One year later (1856 : 104, pl. 20, fig. 103) Hanley commented on Wood's figure of Voluta ruffina, suggesting that it is the same species as Mitra eremitarum Réding, 1798. Dodge (1955 : 107-109) treated Voluta ruffina rather thoroughly, and sug- gested that the Gualtieri figure (1742) could possibly represent Voluta aurantia Gmelin, 1791, but remarked further that “‘ the resemblance between the figures and the Linnaean description is too uncertain to be seriously entertained ”’. The writer stated, that two specimens of Mitra ferruginea Lamarck, are in the Linnean collection and are accompanied by a label reading “‘ Voluta ruffina’’. As the Linnean collection did not contain specimens of V. ruffina at the time Hanley examined it, Dodge concluded that the labels were attached to the species by a later investigator on the basis of Hanley’s conclusions. Dodge found Voluta ruffina inadequately defined, a conclusion with which I agree. It is recommended that Voluta ruffina Linnaeus be suppressed as a nomen dubium for the following reasons: (1) The original diagnosis and subdescription are inadequate for an identification and contain diagnostic characters incompatible with the cited Gualtieri figure (1742). (2) The only indication cited, i.e. Figure G on pl. 54 in Gualtieri (1742), is dissimilar to the species Mitra scabricula (Linnaeus) with which it was compared by Linnaeus, and cannot be identified with any par- ticular species. The sculpture of the shell and features of the outer lip as depicted in the cited figure, are contradictory to diagnostic characters contained in the original diagnosis and subdescription. (3) There is no specimen marked “ Voluta ruffina”” in the Linnean collection at the Linnaean Society in London (Dodge, 1955, 107: 109). The two specimens of the species Mitra Serruginea Lamarck present in the Linnean collection, cannot be regarded as authentic types, as the accompanying label ‘‘ Voluta ruffina” must have been added by 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature unknown hand after Hanley examined the collection (1855). 4. Bulla conoidea Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 1185, No. 385. The original diagnosis is ‘‘ B. testa oblongo-turbinata laevi, basi substriata, suturis crenulatis”. The subdescription is ‘‘ Testa magnitudine glandis, albido-flavescens, structura coni, vix striata, nisi versus basin striis aliquot punctatis. Spira conica, testa dimidio brevior. Anfractus tenues, imbricati ad marginem punctis quasi crenulati. Basis emarginata. Columella plicis 5s. 6. Labium obtusum.” No indication to a published figure is cited. No locality is given. The specific name Bulla conoidea Linnaeus, did not appear in literature for 100 years. It was mentioned by Réding (1798, Museum Boltenianum sive Catalogus cimeliorum; pars secunda continens Conchylia : 53) as Pterygia conoidea (=Voluta conus Gmelin, 1791). Hanley (1855 : 207-208) was unable to identify Linnaeus’ species, but suggested that it may be a Mirra in the section Conohelix (sic). Dodge (1955, 107 : 36-38) advocated the re-introduction of Bulla conoidea Linnaeus, and pointed out that the Linnaean species may represent either Mitra conulus Lamarck, 1811 (=M. conus Gmelin, 1791) or Imbricaria conica Schumacher, 1817 (=I. conularis Lamarck, 1811); the writer, however, favored Mitra conus (Gmelin) as the species identical with Bulla conoidea Linnaeus. Although Linnaeus’ original diagnosis and subdescription contain diagnostic characters compatible with the species Voluta conus Gmelin, they are equally well applicable to Voluta dactylus Linnaeus, 1767, and to the smooth form or beach-worn specimens of Voluta crenulata Gmelin, 1791. V. dactylus also possesses brown spiral striae, a conical form with a crenulate or granulose spire and six columellar folds. Since Linnaeus’ diagnosis and subdescription are unsupported by an indication to published figures, and the species has been placed in the section Bulla instead of Voluta where all other Linnaean species of Mitra were placed, they are on their own insufficient to identify the species unequivocally. Furthermore, the species had not been mentioned from the Museum Ludovicae Ulricae collection (1764), and there is no specimen answering to Linnaeus’ description in the Linnaean collection at the Linnaean Society in London; the species has not been included on the list of specimens owned by Linnaeus (Dodge, 1955, 107 : 36). In view of the reasons cited, the name Bulla conoidea Linnaeus, should be suppressed as a nomen dubium. I herewith submit to the International Commission proposals that it should: (1) make use of its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not those of the Law of Homonymy the following specific names, all four of which are nomina dubia: (a) pertusa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Voluta pertusa; (b) morio Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Voluta morio; (c) ruffina Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Voluta ruffina; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203 (d) conoidea Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Bulla conoidea; (2) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) pertusa Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 732) as published in the combination Voluta pertusa (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above); (b) morio Linnaeus (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) : 1193) as published in the combination Voluta morio (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above); (c) ruffina Linnaeus (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) : 1192) as published in the combination Voluta ruffina (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c) above); (d) conoidea Linnaeus (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) : 1185) as published in the combination Bulla conoidea (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (d) above). 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature VESPERTILIO SUBULATUS SAY, 1823: PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (MAMMALIA, CHIROPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1701 By Bryan P. Glass and Robert J. Baker (Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) 1. The purpose of this application is to request the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name subulatus Say, 1823, as published in the combination Vespertilio subulatus (James’ account of Long’s Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, 2 : 65), and thus to ensure that the specific name Myotis yumanensis H. Allen, 1864 (Smithsonian Musc. Coll. 7 (Publ. 165) : 58) is conserved. 2. In 1823 Say collected a specimen of a species of Myotis near the 104th meridan on the Arkansas River, and described it in his notes, using the species name Vespertilio subulatus. His description was published verbatim as a footnote in James’ account of the expedition. Say did not state that the specimen was preserved; however, as far as is known, all of his natural history collections were deposited in the Philadelphia Museum (Peale’s Museum) which was later destroyed by fire. Pertinent parts of Say’s description read as follows: “*... flew rapidly in various directions, over the surface of the creek. ... Ears longer than broad, nearly as long as the head, hairy on the basal half, a little ventricose on the anterior edge, and extending near the eye; tragus elongated, subulate; the hair above blackish at base, tip dull cinereous; the interfemoral membrane hairy at base, the hairs unicolored, and a few also scattered over its surface, and along its edge, as well as that of the brachial membrane; hair beneath black, the tip yellowish white; hind feet rather long, a few setae extending over the nails; only a minute portion of the tail protrudes beyond the membrane. Total length 2 9-10 inches. tail 1 1-5.” 3. The description of Say fits M. yumanensis, not M. subulatus (of Miller and G. M. Allen, USMN Bull. 144, 1928, and of later authors): M. yumanensis M. subulatus Dorsum dull cinereous Dorsum bright chestnut Uropatagium hairy at base Uropatagium naked at base Hind feet long Hind feet short Setae over nails No setae over nails Flies close to water Flies high 4. Myotis yumanensis is at present the only species of Myotis (other than the species currently referred to as subulatus) known from the vicinity of Say’s type locality, but the recognition of yumanensis in this region dates only from 1957. Other western Myotis possibly occurring in the vicinity may be excluded on the basis of one or more characters listed by Say: Myotis velifer—ears not hairy on basal half, hairs not blackish at base, size much too large; Myotis thysanodes—ears too long and not hairy on basal half, fringed interfemoral Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 membrane, size much too large; Myotis volans—color brown, not dull cinereous, interfemoral membrane naked, size too large; Myotis lucifugus— color brown with burnished tips to hairs, not dull cinereous; Myotis cali- fornicus—color not dull cinereous, foot too small. 5. In 1855 Le Conte (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. : 435) applied the name Vespertilio subulatus Say to bats from his plantation in the tidewater country near Riceboro, Liberty County, Georgia. Miller and G. M. Allen (USNM Bull. 144 : 42, 1928) have indicated that Le Conte presumed that he had two species, to one of which he applied the name M. subulatus Say, but they pre- sumed that all the specimens were actually M. /ucifugus. Whatever the species actually was, it certainly was not the saxicolous species currently bearing the name M. subulatus, which is absent from the south eastern United States. 6. In 1864 Harrison Allen (Smith Miscl. Coll. No. 165 : 51) applied Say’s name to the eastern form of the long-eared bat, which usage was accepted until the revision of the genus by Miller and G. M. Allen (USNM Bull. 144, 1928) wherein they correctly rejected M. subulatus for the eastern long-eared Myotis in favor of the name M. keeni Merriam 1895, which is currently accepted, but erroneously applied the name Myotis subulatus Say to the form currently bearing the name. Miller and Allen (op. cit. p. 28) based this change, in part, on their imperfect knowledge of the bats known to occur in south eastern Colorado. 7. Identification of the species that Say had in hand when he wrote his description places in jeopardy the species name yumanensis which has stood unchallenged for 101 years. Such a change is not in keeping with the intent of the rules to promote stability. 8. The oldest species name available for the bat currently carrying the name M. subulatus Say is leibi published as Vespertilio leibii Audubon and Bachman, Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. (1) 8 : 124, 1842. Suppression of the name subulatus requires that the subspecies of this taxon be as follows: Myotis leibi leibi Audubon and Bachman 1842, Type locality Erie County, Ohio. Myotis leibi ciliolabrum H. Allen, 1893, Type locality Near Banner, Trego County, Kansas. Myotis leibi melanorhinus Merriam 1890. Type locality Little Spring, North base of San Francisco Mountain, Coconino County, Arizona, Altitude 8,250 feet. 8. For the reasons listed above we now request the International Com- mission on Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name subulatus Say, 1823, used originally in the combination Vespertilio subulatus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the name yumanensis H. Allen, 1864, as published in the binomen Vespertilio yumanensis on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; and (3) to place the specific name subulatus Say, 1823, as published in the binomen Vespertilio subulatus, on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TRICHOGONIA ROSSMAESSLER, 1835 LAMELLIBRANCHIATA: PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1702 By Joshua L. Baily Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) The object of this application is the suppression of the generic name Trichogonia Rossmaessler, 1835. This name was published in 1835, the reference being ‘‘ Icones Land und Siisswasser Moll. Europ., v. 1, pe. 1, p. 112”. The type, by monotypy, is Mytilus polymorphus Pallas. This species is also the type of Dreissena van Beneden published the same year. Since the generic name Dreissena has been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under Opinion 782, it would seem appropriate that its objective synonym Trichogonia be suppressed under the plenary powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority, and placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names. Accordingly I hereby request that such action be taken. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 3. August 1965. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman: The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director: Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant: Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Opinions Opinion 736 (Flexicalymene Shirley, 1936) Opinion 737 (Bironella gracilis Theobald, 1905) .. Opinion 738 (Triturus (Gyrinophilus) lutescens Rafinesque, 1832) Opinion 739 (Sigara Fabricius and Micronecta Broan Opinion 740 (Pisania Bivona, 1832). . : Opinion 741 (Ctenophthalmus Kolenati, 1856) Opinion 742 (Ceratomya Sandberger, 1864) Opinion 743 (Xylocopa Latreille, [1802—1803]) Opinion 744 (Ablabes chinensis Ginther, 1889) Opinion 745 (Coluber subocularis Brown, 1901) .. Opinion 746 (Spilotes melanurus Duméril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854) Opinion 747 (Rhynchium Spinola, 1806) .. : Opinion 748 (Eulachnus del Guercio, 1909) New Cases Lepus douglasii Gray, 1837 (Mammalia): Proposed addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum (Charles A. Long) F Anthanassa Scudder, 1875 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (F. Martin Brown) Aphelenchus steueri Stefanski, 1916 (Nematoda): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (S. A. Sher) é Amblema Rafinesque, 1820 (Lamellibranchiata): Proposed addition to the Official List and proposed suppression of Amblema Rafinesque, 1819. (Arthur H. Clarke, Jr. and William J. Clench) ; Voluta pertusa Linnaeus, 1758; Voluta morio Linnaeus, 1767; Voluta ruffina Linnaeus, 1767; Bulla conoidea Linnaeus, 1767 (Gastropoda): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Walter O. Cernohorsky) Vespertilio subulatus Say, 1823 (Mammalia): ‘Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Bryan P. Glass and Robert J. Baker) . _ Trichogonia Rossmaessler, 1835 (Lamellibranchiata): Proposed suppres- sion under the plenary powers (Joshua L. Baily) zi 162 164 167 169 171 173 176 178 180 182 184 186 188 190 192 195 196 198 204 206 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) cs Comments Gari Schumacher, 1817: Comments on Dr. H. Lemche’s st (L. R. Cox) Bk Comment on the proposed designation of type-species for six genera in the superfamily MURICACEA (David F. McMichael) Comments on the application to validate Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792, for the Indian Ocean Sailfish. (Henning Lemche; P. J. P. Whitehead; C. R. Robins; F. Williams; Th. Monod) ] Comment on the proposed rejection of Hiibner’s Erste Zutrdge, 1808 (E. Berio) Memorandum on Proposal to validate Cacatua (Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the iornaumens Resi a9 Congress) tf: : ‘ © 1965. Tue INTER? 2TIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment Page 144 146 148 154 156 Volume 22, Part 4 2nd November, 1965 pp. 207-270, 1 plate THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS Page Commissioner N. S. Borchsenius ag te ues i Rei 7) Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature oF af 208 Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 208 (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 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1, 1965 Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) Lisa apaes o baie Historie, Leen, The Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, ee ee ee pt ped ir ole of of ae ea i. P rian mae Doria”, Genova, Hay) (16 sor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universtets Zoologiska Insti 19 1s r H. _BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum yan Natuurli ete", Thee vey in) ee tor Dr. R a pear is tes cae Deel, Mays tra) hue aie 1 Department of Mertsultarcy Dirision of eaten e 7 Peas hese (Brash ‘Museum Giaetel History), London) (21 May 1962) Bie BINDER scum d Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) 21 May 1962) ARAL See Perea Me ae 1963) ller Institute, New York, N.Y, USA) ey August Baa smuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) sewn af Compaiative 2 se at Harvard College, Cambridge, ad tisrore Nan Paris, France) (28 August 1963) va sei greta | University of California, La Jolla us (Senckenbertsc i aan Geselschs, Frankf aM, Germany) ree. de ‘Su , Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Bie tts, Wren ae Macuno hie BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 22, Part 4 (pp. 207-270), 1 plate 2nd November, 1965 Dr. Alden H. Miller The Secretary regrets to announce the sudden death of the President of the Commission, Dr. Alden H. Miller. An obituary will be published as soon as possible. Commissioner Dr. N. S. Borchsenius Dr. N.S. Borchsenius, Professor of Biology, Leningrad Academy of Sciences, Vice-President of the Soviet Entomological Society, Assistant Director of the Zoological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., and Soviet Member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, died suddenly in Leningrad on the 5th of May, 1965. Nikolai Sergeevich Borchsenius was a leading specialist on Scale Insects (Homoptera, Coccoidea) and was a very famous Russian entomologist. He was born in Leningrad (then St. Petersburg) on the 20th November, 1906. No information about his early life is available. Having graduated at the University of Leningrad, he started his career in entomology as a specialist on Coccoidea at the Pest Infestation and Quarantine Organisation of the U.S.S.R. in 1929. In 1941, he submitted a thesis for his Doctor of Philosophy. Three years later Dr. Borchsenius joined the Zoological Institute of the Lenin- grad Academy of Sciences, where he remained until his death. In 1947, he received his Doctor of Science degree, his thesis being entitled “* Pseudococcidae of the U.S.S.R.” In 1956 he became Professor and in 1959 Assistant Director of the Zoological Institute. Borchsenius published more than 100 papers on Coccoidea, the largest being: “ Fauna of the U.S.S.R.’’, in three volumes, Pseudococcidae (1949), Coccidae (1957), and Kermococcidae, Asterolecaniidae, Lecaniodiaspidae and Aclerdidae (1960); Identification of Pseudcoccidae and Coccidae of the U.S.S.R. (1949); Identification of Coccoidea attacking cultivated and wild trees of the U.S.S.R. (1963); and Catalogue of the Diaspididae of the World (in press). Dr. Borchsenius led extensive expeditions to various parts of the U.S.S.R. and also to Korea, China and India. Much of this material was worked out and published in numerous papers. He established the new family Lecaniodi- aspididae, some new subfamilies and tribes, dozens of new genera and hundreds of new species of Coccoidea. For twenty years he was a Committee member of the Soviet Entomological Society, and from 1944-1952 he was the Secretary. For a few years before his death he was Vice-President of the Society. In 1958, he attended the 15th International Congress of Zoology in London and was a member of the Com- mittee on Nomenclature. He was also a delegate to the 11th International Congress of Entomology at Vienna in 1960 and to the 12th International Congress of Entomology in London in 1964. During his career Dr. Borchsenius made many friends throughout the world and corresponded with them regularly. He was appointed International Commissioner representing the U.S.S.R. in September, 1961. His death will be grieved by entomologists throughout the world. [This obituary has been modified from a Russian text by O. Kryzhanovsky, a translation of which has been made by Madam E. F. Izvekova to whom the Assistant Secretary is much indebted.] 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin:— (1) Suppression of the specific name Drassus atropos Walckenaer, 1830 (Araneae). Z.N.(S.) 1625. (2) Validation of Pan and Panthera from Oken, 1816 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 482. (3) Designation of a neotype for Ceratophyllus soricis Dale, 1878 (Insecta, Siphonaptera). Z.N.(S). 1618. (4) Suppression of Eucidaris Pomel, 1883, Papula Bayle, 1878, Cidaris papillataconoidea Parkinson, 1811, and Cidarites savignyi Audouin, 1826 (Echinoidea). Z.N.(S.) 1705. (5) Designation of a type-species for Phasia Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.NAS.) 1706. (6) Suppression of the specific name Papilio lintingensis Osbeck, 1765 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1708. (7) Designation of a type-species for Monopsyllus Kolenati, 1875; suppression of the specific names Ceratopsyllus sciuri Kolenati, 1856, Monopsyllus sciuri Kolenati, 1857 and Ceratopsyllus monoctenus Kolenati, 1856 (Insecta, Siphonaptera). Z.N.(S.) 1709. (8) Designation of a type-species for Stizus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1710. (9) Designation of a type-species for Diodontus Curtis, 1834 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1711. (10) Designation of a type-species for Trychosis Foerster, 1868 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1712. (11) Designation of a type-species for Prospaltella Ashmead, 1904 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1713. (12) Suppression of the specific name Mullus auriflamma Forsskal, 1775 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1714. (13) Designation of a type-species for Chamaemyia Meigen, 1803 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 1716. (14) Suppression of the generic name Xyleborus Bowdich, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1720. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary, London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on September 1965. Zoological Nomenclature ’ ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR PITHECOPS HORSFIELD, 1828. Z.N.(S.) 1675 (see present volume, pages 69-71) By C. F. Cowan (Tring, Herts.) Francis Hemming was a man for whom I had the greatest affection and for whose views and work I have the utmost respect. However, his application on this subject published posthumously in April 1965 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 (1) : 69-71) is one which I cannot support. Under the references quoted by Hemming, and as he says, Horsfield designated the genus Pithecops based on an insect from Java which he faithfully described and figured, but misidentified as Papilio (Hesperia) hylax Fabricius, which nominal species was designated the type-species of the genus by Scudder (1875). But Fabricius’s name applies in fact not to Horsfield’s oriental insect but to the circumtropical species known, until Corbet in 1940 pointed out the error, as Zizula gaika (Trimen, 1862). In consequence, as Corbet made clear, the circumtropical species should be known as Zizula hylax Fab. and, assuming proper steps are taken regarding type fixation, the Javan insect as Pithecops corax Fruhstorfer (1919). To describe the two specific taxa in Pithecops hylax corvus Fruh. and P.h. corax Fruh. as almost completely unknown is surely most misleading; they are fully dealt with and referenced in Seitz Vol. 9 (110) (1920) : 879 and 1014, pl. 154 figs. e, 1-4, and quite familiar in the region affected. It is 25 years since Corbet corrected the specific nomenclature error, and his article has been accepted, and the consequent corrections carried out, as indeed they should, certainly throughout the Oriental region. The most recent publications from Malay- sia, Japan, India (sens. /at.), and Australasia respectively are, and treat of: Corbet (1956) (pp. 277 & 456, Pithecops corvus Fruh., 289 & 457, Zizula hylax Fab.); Shir6zu (1960) (pp. 335 & 456, Zizula hylax Fab.); Cantlie (1962) (pp. 36, Pithecops corvus Fruh.; 65, Zizula hylax Fab.); and Couchman (1962) (pp. 76, Zizula hylax attenuata (Lucas)). Thus over the entire region where both the affected species fly the errors have been corrected smoothly and quietly in conformity with the rules, without any of the “serious confusion ” or “ disastrous consequences ’’ which Hemming so strangely feared. Any authors elsewhere who may not yet have adopted hy/ax Fab. as the senior taxon for gaika Trimen are at fault under the rules. It might be of assistance to authors in similar cases if the International Commission were to publish details of such necessary changes, or at least references to them, at an early date after their discovery, although of course with the introduction of Article 23 (b) and the nomina oblita rule such cases will become increasingly rare. Any attempt now by the International Commission to switch these names back after the lapse of 25 years would surely do it, and all conscientious observers of the rules, far more harm than good. There remains the necessity for action to regularize the use of the generic name Pithecops Horsfield, as so well explained by Hemming. I therefore request that the International Commission: (1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Pithecops Horsfield (1828), made prior to the ruling now proposed and, having done so, to designate as the type-species of that genus the species Pithecops corax Fruhstorfer (1919) as published in the trinomen Pithecops hylax corax. (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Pithecops Horsfield (1828), Descr. Cat. lep. Ins. Mus. East India Coy. (1): 66 (gender : masculine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Pithecops corax Fruhstorfer (1919). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name corax Fruhstorfer as published in the trinomen Pithecops hylax corax Fruhstorfer (1919) Arch. Naturgesch. 83, Section A.1 (1917): 79, (type-species of Pithecops Horsfield (1828)). NOTE: Both Lieut.-Col. J. N. Eliot and Mr. G. E. Tite have asked me to say they are most emphatically in agreement with the above views, the latter pointing out that African authors long ago accepted the discovery of Corbet and complied with the rules, vide Peters (1952) (p. 119, no. 192, Zizula hylax F.), and Stempffer (1957) (p. 220, Zizula hylax Fab.). REFERENCES (other than quoted above and given by Hemming) CANTLIE, SIR KeITH. 1962. The Lycaenidae Portion of Evans’ Identification of Indian Butterflies, Revised. pp. i-vi, 1-172, 5 plates. Bombay Corset, A. S. 1956. The Butterflies of the Malay Peninsula, Edn. 2. pp. 1-537, 55 plates. London CoucuMaN, L. E. 1962. Notes on some Tasmanian and Australian Lepidoptera. Pap. & Proc. R. Soc. Tasmania 96 : 73-81, pl. 1, text figs. 1-3 & map Peters, W. 1952. Provisional check List of the Butterflies of the Ethiopian Region. pp. 1-201. London SHIROZU, TAKASHI. 1960. The Butterflies of Formosa in Colour. pp. 1-481, 76 plates, 479 text figs. Osaka STEMPFFER, H. 1957. Les Lépidoptéres de l’Afrique Noire Francaise (3). Institut Francais d’ Afrique Noire; Initiations Africaines 14: pp. 1-228, 331 text figs. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF CNEMIDOPHORUS SEPTEMVITTATUS COPE, 1882. Z.N.(S.) 1634 (see volume 21, pages 364-365) By Jay M. Savage (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.) Request by Dr. Ralph Axtell requesting that the principle of the first reviser be set aside in the case of the names Cnemidophorus septemvittatus, and semifasciatus seems to be based upon completely subjective criteria rather than principles of nomenclature. Burger as first reviser selected semifasciatus. The sole reason for Axtell’s request is based upon his subjective evaluation of the relative scientific merit of Burger’s paper as opposed to the paper by Duellman and Zweifel. If such reasoning should be consistently employed in substituting for the rules of nomenclature, the very stability that the rules provide will be lost in a morass of subjective evaluation of the relative scientific merit of every paper. To argue that a cornerstone of the rules should be set aside merely because Dr. Axtell thinks that Duellman and Zweifel’s contribution is superior to Burger’s is totally irrelevant as well as completely subjective. I propose that the Commission should refuse to set aside the principle of the first reviser in this case and indeed in any others that are based upon such subjective evaluation. By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.) The basis for the appeal by Axtell for use of the plenary powers to validate the selection by Duellman and Zweifel of septemvittatus as the senior name among the simultaneously proposed names septemvittatus, scalaris and semifasciatus, is main- tenance of nomenclatural stability. On exactly the same grounds I here request that the Commission sanction the selection of sca/aris as the senior name, among the same three, as proposed by Williams and Smith (1963). The real basis for discontent by the latter authors with Duellman and Zweifel’s choice of septemvittatus was not simply that Burger’s action as first reviser had in reality eliminated septemvittatus from consideration—Duellman and Zweifel’s choice was understandable since some practising taxonomists dislike (unjustifiably, in my opinion) first reviser rules. Their failure to pay heed to Burger’s action is in itself certainly of minor importance and not worth escalation to the status of an issue; nevertheless, the fact that a regulation of the Code was violated would inevitably have required adjustment at some time in the future. The real reason Williams and Smith objected to selection of septemvittatus as the senior name, among these three, was that never, since the original description, had that name been used as the valid name for any taxon at any level (specific or subspecific) prior to Duellman and Zweifel’s work (1962), whereas semifasciatus had been used as a valid name at least by Burger (1950) and some authors following him (e.g. Smith and Taylor, 1950, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., 199 : 184, in their check list and key to the lizards of Mexico), and sca/aris had been used, as a valid name, by numerous authors and was therefore the logical choice, other factors permitting, for the senior name, on the grounds of general familiarity among herpetologists. Furthermore several of the works using scalaris have been of monographic and therefore influential nature. The point was made by Axtell that Duellman and Zweifel’s work is definitive, or at least more nearly so than anyone else’s review (“* All subsequent work on this group of Cnemidophorus will, by necessity, stem from... [it]... ’), and therefore that their terminology should be accepted, whatever it might be (“‘ It is extremely important, therefore, that the names used in this publication be preserved.”’). The definitiveness of the work is highly questionable. The genus Cnemidophorus is one of the most difficult taxonomic nuts to crack in all reptiles, and there is little reason to hope that Duellman and Zweifel have reached the ultimate truth despite the perfectly acceptable proposition that their review is by far the best yet achieved. Duellman and Zweifel themselves were under no illusion of ultimate truth in proposing their arrangement, as indicated by their comment (p. 207): ‘‘ We realize, however, that our colleagues may Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965, 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature come, with Shakespeare, to feel that ‘ Tis the times’ plague, when madmen lead the blind’ King Lear.” It is not my intent to belittle their monograph, which indeed marks a highly significant step forward in Cnemidophorus taxonomy; the point is simply that as a point of departure their work is different from others only because it is the most recent. This difference will inevitably fade away as time passes and does not justify crystallization of nomenclature because of its present importance. Nomen- clatural rearrangement of populations has continued since their work appeared, and will continue to do so. There is every reason to hold it as quite possible that the populations to which the three names in present consideration are now applied will be considered conspecific with others to which still older names have been applied, thus requiring still further changes of specific names. In such a situation it is unwise to regard any given nomenclatural arrangement as more deserving of sanction, and protection, than any other, for taxonomic stability in this genus is still a long way off. The greatest service to nomenclatural stability is in preservation of the most familiar names, when choices do arise, and it was in this spirit that Williams and Smith elected a course within the framework of the Code to place the greatest nomenclatural emphasis upon scalaris, as definitely the most widely-used name among the three in question. The patently erroneous type locality of septem- vittatus, even though subsequently and arbitrarily revised, lends no weight to the proposal for approval by the Commission of its selection. Accordingly I hereby request that the Commission deny the appeal for approval of Duellman and Zweifel’s selection of septemvittatus as the senior name among septem- vittatus, semifasciatus and scalaris, and that it uphold the selection by Williams and Smith of scalaris. By Kenneth L. Williams (Museum of Zoology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.) The use of the combination Cnemidophorus septemvittatus as the senior name by Duellman and Zweifel (1962) in preference to either C. scalaris or C. semifasciatus was an infraction of the Code. Thus, it was necessary to make a correction as done by Williams and Smith (1963) or request the Commission to set aside the rules and vali- date septemvittatus as done by Axtell (1964). I strongly recommend the selection of C. sca/aris as the senior name for the follow- ing reasons: (1) Duellman and Zweifel’s work, as they clearly noted, is not the “ last word ” on this group of lizards. Actually it is not certain that the three names involved belong to the same species, or on the other hand, that other forms with older names are not conspecific. It, thus, is very likely that there may be more name changes in the future. (2) C. scalaris has been utilized in the literature a number of times, whereas C. septemvittatus has not been, prior to Duellman and Zweifel. (3) C. septemvittatus was associated with an erroneous type locality; this was corrected, but does detract from its choice as senior name. I recommend that the proposal by Axtell requesting validation of septemvittatus as senior name in place of scalaris or semifasciatus be rejected, and that scalaris as pro- posed by Williams and Smith be approved as the senior name. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR MYTILUS (NOW ANODONTA) ANATINUS LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.NAS.) 1643 (see volume 21, pages 432-434) By Per Brinck (Zoological Institute, University, Lund, Sweden) In his application Dr. Lemche has presented the case well but I feel doubtful as ee his final proposals. A few additional data on the name Mytilus anatinus may useful. Mytilus anatinus was briefly diagnosed by Linnaeus (Syst. Nat. I, No. 219 : 706; 1758) as is given by Brander (Ark. f. Zool., ser. 2, 9 ; 6 : 177) in his discussion of the name of the species. But there are two more detailed descriptions, viz. in the Fauna Suecica (ed. 1, 1746, No. 1332 : 380; ed. 2, 1761, No. 2158 : 522) and a few general notes in his “ Lectures” written 1748-1752 (ed. E. Lénnberg : Linnés férelasningar Ofver djurriket, Stockholm 1913). These data demonstrate that Linnaeus regarded his M. anatinus as covering the widely distributed Swedish ‘‘ Sj6-Mussla”’ (Lake Mussel), ‘‘ common in lakes and rivers where it is found in water so deep that it does not freeze. The shell is used to store the colour in the paint-boxes which are for sale in the grocers’ shops”. (Linnés forelasningar, p. 354.) Extant Linnaean material in the Linnaean Society (London) and the Zoological Museum of Upsala belongs to Pseudanodonta complanata (Ziegl.) Rossm., 1835 (cf. Brander, l.c.). The species which is common and widespread in Sweden (like in the rest of Fennos- candia) is Anodonta anatina s. auct. anglic., while Pseudanodonta complanata (Ziegl.) Rossm. is rarely found and certainly not the species primarily meant by the trivial name sjOmussla. Present facts say, as does our knowledge of Linnaeus’s idea of the species concept, that Mytilus anatinus L. was a composite species, meant to cover the big mussels abundantly occurring in Swedish lakes (and rivers). Therefore, we are certainly not forced to accept any Linnaean specimen in London and Upsala as being the “ type ”’, and by the way, I know of no designation of such a specimen as a lectotype, though according to Lemche (l.c.) the specimen in London is ‘‘ generally regarded as the type ”’. From a practical point of view the best would undoubtedly be to drop anatina and preserve Nilsson’s name piscinalis for the species, at the same time as the Pseudanodonta species under discussion is dealt with as P. complanata (Ziegl.) Rossm. The question is whether it is such a very serious procedure to suppress and extract a name already on the Official List (Lemche, I.c.), a name which happened to come there without a close examination of the case. I would prefer a solution according to this alternative. Dr. Lemche, however, has accepted alternative (c) of Dr. Hubendick and Dr. Waldén (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 435), viz. selecting a neotype of Mytilus anatinus inconsistent with the “ original ’’ Linnaean material. Dr. Lemche proceeds by saying that he has “‘ not been able to get any help from Swedish malacologists in choosing a neotype among material in a Swedish museum and from Sweden”. So he chooses a shell from the moat around Copenhagen, more closely the part retained as a small lake in the botanical garden. I wonder if Dr. Lemche has tried to come in contact with the people at the Lund Zoological Museum which has rich collections of Swedish Anodonta, including the typical material of Sven Nilsson, and has a specialist working on the ecological distribution and differentiation of these molluscs. As is evident from, e.g. Brander’s paper (Afk. f. Zool. 9, 6 : 175 sqq) there is a very great variation among these molluscs, dependent on the habitat. Therefore, it is important that a neotype is not chosen from a habitat like a moat, being in a way an artefact which certainly stamps any population of these mussels typologically. We would all be anxious not to fix the name anatina to such a population. It we want to Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature designate a neotype there is no doubt that the best is to select as such the lectotype, of Nilsson’s piscinalis which should be chosen out of the Nilsson collection in Lund and referred to one of the rich Scanian lake populations of the species. I have contacted Dr. T. Brander, Helsingfors, Finland, our foremost specialist of these mussels, and he informs me that according to his opinion it is definitely better to suppress anatina than to select a neotype = piscinalis Nilsson, since the name anatina is used in so many different ways. Anyhow, he can see no reason to take a possible neotype from a town moat, and discusses at length the modification of the species in various types of water. He concludes that a good representative of the unmodified form, inhabiting natural eutrophic water bodies, is the specimen ex coll. Nilsson (in the Lund Museum) which was figured by him in 1956 (l.c.: 181, fig. 4) and this should preferably be selected as the neotype, if such a procedure is found to be necessary. By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California) 1 agree with Dr. Lemche completely that the name Anodonta anatina should not be withdrawn from the Official List, for the reason set out by Dr. Lemche—that it would impair the authority of these lists. The number of those who do not accept the rulings of the Commission is uncomfort- ably large, and I think it would be unfortunate if the Commission itself should take any step to fortify their position. So at all costs this name should be retained. Perhaps it might have been possible in the past to have kept this name off the Official List, but it is too late now to consider what should have been done before. To remove a name from the list after it has once been placed there would do more to disstabilize its standing than any other step I can think of. The name should therefore be preserved and a suitable specimen be suggested and then confirmed a neotype. Dr. Lemche does not state where the type locality of this species is. Neither do Dr. Hubendick and Dr. Waldén in their comment on Dr. Lemche’s application (ibid., p. 435) although they imply that it is known. The species selected by Dr. Lemche apparently does not come from the type locality, and is therefore not a satisfactory neotype. But it is possible that there are no perfect specimens from the type locality. This would be unfortunate, as the neotype should of course be perfect. It is obvious that selection of a damaged specimen may make trouble in the future if it is designated as a type. The locality given by Linnaeus is the fresh waters of Europe. That is broad enough to cover the locality of Dr. Lemche’s lectotype. That would be perfectly satisfactory to me if there are no better specimens in the Linnean collection in London or the collection in the M.L.U. It would seem that further investigation is needed before an ideally satisfactory neotype can be appointed. By C. O. van Regteren Altena (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Before discussing the two solutions proposed by H. Lemche (Bull. 21 (6) : 432-434, December 1964) I want to point out to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature that not all malacologists agree about the number of species of Anodonta (s. str.) to be distinguished in the European fauna. The outstanding specialist of najads, and particularly of the European species, F. Haas (see, e.g. Fieldiana, Zool. 24 : 136, January 30, 1940) has eventually come to the conclusion that all the European forms of Anodonta (s. str.) belong to one extremely variable species: A. cygnea (L.). This already earlier expressed opinion was followed for instance in P. Ehrmann’s authorative treatment of the non-marine Mollusca in “‘ Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas ” (1933). As the name Mytilus cygneus Linnaeus has been put on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as the type-species of the genus Anodonta Lamarck, acceptance of Lemche’s proposal would place a name on that list which some specialists consider to be a subjective synonym of a name already earlier placed on it. On the other hand, the number of authors holding the opinion that there exist two species of Anodonta (s. str.) in Western Europe is perhaps greater than that of those “2, 7h egen s i my Be Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 following Haas. Although they admit that both species are very variable and often difficult to distinguish, their opinion is also based on careful study of a large amount of material. They are, therefore, fully justified in claiming a valid name for what they consider to be a “‘ good ” species. * I do not think that it can be wholly avoided that names which are subjective synonyms according to some specialists will be placed on the Official List, but those who have to decide this case should know about all its intricacies. I agree with Lemche that “‘ extraction of a name already on the Official List is a very serious thing to do ”’, but, on the other hand, choosing a neotype for a species disagree- ing with the result of careful analysis of its author’s intentions also seems a first step on a slippery slope. A better solution might be to let the name Anodonta anatina date from the first author who unequivocally meant the possible second European species of Anodonta (s. str.) by it, which, according to Brander (Ark. Zool. (2) 9 (6) : 182, June 8, 1956), probably was O. F. Miller, 1774. We in the Netherlands always used the name A. piscinalis Nilsson for that form. Acceptance of Lemche’s proposal (A) would, therefore, favour stability in Dutch faunistic literature. By A. E. Ellis (Carshalton, Surrey, England) The application by Dr. Lemche is timely, and I beg to support his suggested solution (C). This is all the more desirable because Anodonta piscinalis Nilsson, 1823, is by no means the earliest name for this species if anatinus Linnaeus is rejected. The following specific names, which are regarded by various authors as synonymous with Anodonta anatina (L.), would have to be considered: Mytilus radiatus Miiller, 1774, Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium Historia 2 : 209 Mytilus avonensis Montagu, 1803, Testacea britannica: 172 Mytilus fucatus Dillwyn, 1817, Descriptive catalogue of Recent shells: 317 Anodonta intermedia Lamarck, 1819, Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres 6 (1) : 86 Anodonta palustris Férussac, 1822, Dict. Class. Hist. nat. 1 : 397 Mytilus macula Sheppard, 1822, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 13 : 86 Mytilus incrassatus Sheppard, 1822, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 13 : 85 Although these names antedate piscinalis Nilsson, none of them has ever been in general use for this species; they would, however, need to be disposed of before piscinalis could be accepted. If the Commission decides to adopt Lemche’s solution (C), no further action with regard to these names would be called for. I accordingly warmly commend this solution. 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE APPLICATION CONCERNING THE VALIDATION OF AMAUROBIUS C. L. KOCH AND COELOTES BLACKWALL Z.N.(S.) 1625 (see vol. 21, pages 150-153; vol. 22, pages, 140-141) By Fr. Chrysanthus O. F. M. Cap (Warandelaan 5, Oosterhout (N.B.), The Netherlands) Though I agree with the main object of the original application by Levi and Kraus, viz., to validate the generic names Amaurobius C. L. Koch and Coelotes Blackwall in the accustomed sense (cf. my earlier letter to the secretary —together with Dr. L. van der Hammen, Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Sept. 9, 1964), I have to protest against their supplementary proposal on this question. Especially the neotype selection for Drassus atropos Walckenaer is highly objectionable and in my opinion illegal. Ashas been pointed out by me (Chrysanthus, 1965, Tijdschr. Ent. 108, (3) : 61-71), the type of Drassus atropos Walckenaer, 1830 (Faune francaise, Aranéides 27 : 171) is without any doubt identical with the species described later as Aranea terrestris Wider, 1834 (Museum Senckenbergianum 1 : 215), while the species that generally is indicated with the name Coelotes atropos has as its oldest valid specific name saxatilis Blackwall, 1833 (Lond. Phil. Mag. Journ. Sci. [3] 3 : 436). Levi and Kraus (1965, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 (2) : 140) accept my point of view, or at least indicate that it is of a high probability. Levi and Kraus’s selection of a specimen of Coelotes saxatilis Blackwall, 1833, to be the neotype of Drassus atropos Walckenaer violates Article 75(c) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature on three accounts: (1) they do not give their reasons for believing all of the original type material destroyed or lost; (2) there is clear ~ evidence that the specimen selected by them is not consistent with what is known of the original type material; the original description of Drassus atropos does not fit the specimen chosen as the neotype of this species, but clearly is based on a specimen of Coelotes terrestris (Wider); (3) the neotype came from “‘ Harz, Stolberg ’’, in Germany, while the actual type locality of the species is ‘“* la forét de Villers Cotterets ’”’, about 70 km NE. of Paris, France. At the true type locality of Drassus atropos Walckenaer no specimens of the species (Coelotes saxatilis) to which the neotype belongs has ever been found (although the famous French arachnologist Simon collected there), C. terrestris (Wider) being the only one of the two ever met with at the type locality. The first of these three points is a technicality, but the other two are important and in my opinion invalidate the neotype selection, unless that is made under the plenary powers of the Commission. In my opinion the action by Levi and Kraus to pin the name atropos to a species of which we are certain that it was not meant by the original author, their neotype being specifically different from the true type, is inadvisable. The name atropos (1) has been compromised by having been used for two different species, (2) probably has been used more often for the wrong species, and (3) though well known to arachnologists, is not the name of a species of importance in applied sciences. Therefore it seems most advisable to me to suppress this name altogether and accept the unambiguous specific names saxatilis Blackwall, 1833, and terrestris Wider, 1834, for the two species in question. This question has been more extensively dealt with by me in my above quoted paper (Chrysanthus, 1965: 62-67), to which I may refer for further details. My views are supported by the following arachnologists, who expressed their approval in correspondence: Prof. Dr. P. Bonnet, Toulouse (10.vi.65) “* En ce qui concerne votre étude sur les Coelotes, . . . , on doit admettre d’une fagon définitive vos identifications, 4 savoir terrestris Wider 1834 = atropos Walck. 1830 saxatilis Bl. 1833 = atropos auct. Ainsi, d’aprés votre travail, toutes mes références concernant ces deux espéces dans Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217 Bibliogr. Araneorum sont a changer; il faudra rapporter a atropos tout ce qui est a terrestris et admettre une espéce saxatilis avec toutes les références d’atropos. Pour la désignation officielle de ces deux espéces, la chose est assez embarrassante: évidemmant, il y a, d’abord, l’application de la régle de priorité qui veut que l’on adopte atropos Walck. 1830 (= terrestris Wider 1834) et saxatilis Bl. 1833 (= atropos auct.); il y a ensuite votre proposition, qui pour mettre fin a une confusion regrettable, fait appel au bon sens et propose ferrestris Wider et saxatilis Bl. Dans les deux cas, il y a, pour moi, un mot de grande valeur: priorité et bon sens: toutefois il ne me parait pas impossible de les concilier: car maintenant que la dualité et la séparation des 2 espéces est bien établie, il n’y a plus de confusion possible et l’on doit admettre que, désormais, tout le monde appellera atropos ce qui est vraiment atropos W\k (= terrestris) et saxatilis ce qui est sans conteste, le saxatilis Bl. (les anciens atropos). Quant a la confusion d’autrefois, tant pis! Mais ayant écrit cela, je me suis mis a réfléchir encore et j’ai vu que vous faisiez les gros yeux a la pensée que |’on aura maintenant des atropos qui ne seront plus les atropos des anciens auteurs et c’est cela évidemment qui justifie votre proposition de bon sens. Alors, je crois bien que je voterai pour vous. ”’ Dr. G. H. Locket (Stockbridge) and Dr. A. F. Millidge (Coulsdon) (26.v.65) ** We have read your paper ‘ On the identity of Coelotes atropos (Walck.), saxatilis (Blackwall) and terrestris (Wider)’ and have again considered the suggestion put forward on p. 67 for solving the problem of the specific names. We are in favour of the second suggestion, namely to suppress the name C. atropos, resulting in the con- servation of the name C. terrestris (Wider) (= terrestris auct.) and to introduce the name C. saxatilis (Blackwall) (= atropos auct.). We favoured this solution in our letter to you of 15th Nov. 1964 and are confirmed in our view by your argument (on p. 65 and verbally to G.H.L. at Frankfurt) that before the appearance of our ‘ British spiders’ vol. II (1953) and Wiehle’s paper in 1963 (Zool. Jahrb. Systematik 90 pp. 227-298) the two species were often confused, so that the use of saxatilis would now actually give more precise information of identity (free of possibility of such confusion) and would not disturb existing records unduly. ” Dr. J. A. L. Cooke (Oxford) (31.v.65) “I was aware that the Coelotes problem was complex, but I was nevertheless surprised by the difficulties, which you have so clearly explained. I would agree that your second choice (suppression of C. atropos) is best, and I hope other workers will follow your lead. ” Mr. J. R. Parker (Carlisle) (2.vi.65) “Thank you very much... (for your paper)...on the identity of the Coelotes which I found of great interest, as there has been so much confusion in the past. Your proposals to solve the problem of the specific names must now be perfectly clear to everyone and it seems to me that your suggestion on p. 67, paragraph 2, is as you rightly say the most logical solution.” Dr. L. van der Hammen, Curator Dept. of Arachnology, Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, whom I often consulted during the preparation of my paper fully agrees with me regarding the contents. Summarizing, I might suggest that the Commission accept the following paragraphs of Levi’s and Kraus’s original proposal (1964, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 153) : par. 13(1), (2), (3), (4)(a), (5), (6), (7) but not par. 13(4)(b) nor the revised par. 13(4,b) as published by these authors later (Levi and Kraus, 1965, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 22(2) : 141). And in addition the Commission should: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the specific name atropos Walckenaer, 1830 (Faune francaise, Aranéides 27 : 171) as published in the combination Drassus atropos. (2) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) saxatilis Blackwall, 1833 (Lond. Phil. Mag. Journ. Sci. [3]3 : 436) as published in the combination Clubiona saxatilis; (b) terrestris Wider, 1834 (Museum Senckenbergianum 1 : 215) as published in the combination Aranea terrestris; (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name atropos Walckenaer, 1830, as suppressed in (1) above. 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 749 ATHERINA JAPONICA HOUTTUYN, 1782 (PISCES): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name japonica Houttuyn, 1782, as published in the binomen Atherina japonica, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) japonica Houttuyn, 1782, as published in the binomen Atherina japonica (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 830); (b) commersonianus [Lacépéde, 1803], as published in the binomen Stole- phorus commersonianus (a cheironym published inadvertently in 1926 in Opinion 93, in error for commersonii Lacepede, 1803, in the same binomen) (Name No. 831). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) gracilis Schlegel, 1846, as published in the binomen Clupea gracilis (Name No. 2097); (b) commersonii Lacépéde, 1803, as published in the binomen Stolephorus commersonii (type-species of Stolephorus Lacépéde, 1803) (Name No. 2098); (c) japonicus Schlegel, 1846, as published in the binomen Engraulis japonicus (Name No. 2099). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 569) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. P. J. P. Whitehead in July 1962. Dr. Whitehead’s application was sent to the printer on 4 October 1962 and was published on 12 July 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 281-284. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184). The proposals were supported by Dr. Carl L. Hubbs (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 186). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 26 March 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)9 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 283. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 26 June 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Mayr, Obruchev, Alvarado, Boschma, Simpson, Lemche, do Amaral, Jaczewski, Brinck, Riley, Tortonese, Munroe, Uchida, Evans, Forest, Bonnet, Stoll, Binder, Mertens, Kraus, Ride. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. tre ce embed Tees Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219 Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Commissioner Miller returned a late affirmative vote. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Prof. G. G. Simpson (26.iv.65): “1 would prefer to strike out ‘ as a nomen dubium’ in para. 8(1). That is a taxonomic, not a nomenclatural, decision. It weighs for one sole purpose: stabilization of nomenclature. But inclusion in the decision could invite complications if some subsequent reviser held that it is a determinable species (something that this Commission cannot decide). ”’ Dr. H. Lemche (28.iv.65): ““ Except the words in para. 3, lines 2-3: ‘ each having validity... Houttuyn, 1782’ which are explanatory and unecessary. When Houttuyn’s species name has been suppressed, there is no priority for it any more. ”’ Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (25.v.65): “‘ 1 am always opposed in principle to Com- mission action on nomina dubia. If ichthyologists have paid so little attention to an Opinion (93) initiated by the distinguished David Starr Jordan, what can be hoped for another Opinion. ” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: commersonianus, Stolephorus, [Lacépéde, 1803], Smithson. misc. Coll. 73(4) : 1-2 —a cheironym commersonii, Stolephorus, Lacépéde, 1803, Hist. nat. Poiss. 5 : 381 gracilis, Clupea, Schlegel, 1846, in Siebold, Fauna japon. (Pisces) (10-14): 238, p. 108, fig. 2 japonica, Atherina, Houttuyn, 1782, Verh. Holland. Maatsch. Haarlem 20 : 340 japonicus, Engraulis, Schlegel, 1846, in Siebold, Fauna japon. (Pisces) (10-14): 239, pl. 108, fig. 3. CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)9 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 749. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 August 1965 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 750 MELISSODES FONSCOLOMBEI ROMAND, 1841 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name fonscolombei Romand, 1841, as published in the binomen Melissodes fonscolombei, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Melissodes Latreille, 1829, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Melissodes leprieuri Blanchard, 1849, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Melissodes Latreille, 1829 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Melissodes leprieuri Blanchard, 1849, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1690. (3) The specific name /eprieuri Blanchard, 1849, as published in the binomen Melissodes leprieuri, as interpreted by the neotype designated by LaBerge, 1962, (type-species of Melissodes Latreille, 1829) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2100. (4) The specific name fonscolombei Romand, 1841, as published in the binomen Melissodes fonscolombei (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 832. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 862) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Wallace E. LaBerge in October 1954. In February 1962 Dr. LaBerge submitted a revised application which was sent to the printer on 21 May 1962 and was published on 12 July 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 292-293. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184). The proposals were supported by Padre J. S. Moure, Dr. C. D. Michener, Mr. P. H. Timberlake and Dr. T. B. Mitchell. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 26 March 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)10 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 293. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 26 June 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-five (25), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Mayr, Obruchev, Alvarado, Boschma, Simpson, Lemche, Jaczewski, do Amaral, Brinck, Riley, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Munroe, Uchida, Evans, Forest, Bonnet, Stoll, Binder, Mertens, Kraus, Ride. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. Pre PS oe tie teams Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Commissioner Miller returned a late affirmative vote. Commissioner Sabrosky voted for only a section of the proposals presented, and made the following comment: “I vote against (1) (a) and (4), because I am opposed in principle to Commission action on nomina dubia. 1 vote for (1) (b) which is perfectly proper action by itself, without suppression of Melissodes fonscolombei, and for (2) and (3). ” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: fonscolombei, Melissodes, Romand, 1841, in Guérin, Mag. Zool. (2)3 : 5, pl. 70 leprieuri, Melissodes, Blanchard, 1849, in Cuvier, Régne Anim. (ed. 3) 2 : atlas pl. 129 bis, figs. 4, 4a Melissodes Latreille, 1829, in Cuvier, Régne Anim. (ed. 2) 5 : 354 The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for a nominal species concerned in the present Ruling: For Melissodes leprieuri Blanchard, 1849 : LaBerge, 1962, Ent. News 73: 164— 165 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)10 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 750. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 6 August 1965 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 751 LEPROTA MELICHAR, 1912 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Leprota Melichar, 1912, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Leprota melichari Fennah, 1963, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Leprota Melichar, 1912 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Leprota melichari Fennah, 1963, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1691. (3) The specific name melichari Fennah, 1963, as published in the binomen Leprota melichari (type-species of Leprota Melichar, 1912) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2101. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1530) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr. R. G. Fennah in April 1962. Mr. Fennah’s application was sent to the printer on 21 May 1962 and was published on 12 July 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 303- 304. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184). No com- ments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 26 March 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)11 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 304. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 26 June 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Mayr, Obruchev, Alvarado, Boschma, Simpson, Jaczewski, do Amaral, Brinck, Riley, Sabrosky, Munroe, Tortonese, Uchida, Evans, Forest, Bonnet, Stoll, Binder, Mertens, Kraus, Ride. Negative votes—one (1): Lemche. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Commissioner Miller returned a late negative vote, making the following comment: “ This is such a minor case, not involving troublesome confusion that I think the rules should prevail and the Commission not be put in a position of making a special ruling.’ Other Commissioners, in returning their votes, commented as follows: Dr. Henning Lemche (28.iv.65): “‘ This very rarely mentioned genus cannot afford protection through the use of the plenary powers. The simple solution is to follow the rules and to give a new name to the genus, leaving Leprota as a synonym under Saigona. ” Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (24.v.65): “ I note, however, that L. melichari Fennah is not a ‘new name’ strictly speaking, because D. fulgoroides Walker is not preoccupied. See Glossary of the Code. It requires for availability a descrip- tion or a reference to one. Obviously Melichar’s description is ‘ available ’ for use, from the information in the application as a whole, but this should be refer- red to more definitely than Mr. Fennah has done in the sentence ‘ For Leprota fulgoroides Melichar (nec Walker) the new name Leprota melichari is here proposed.’ Melichar might have published other papers and included other specimens, not necessarily conspecific or even congeneric. Note also that the Fennah method of proposal leaves L. melichari without a type. “In item (1) of the proposal, some better wording should be devised for cases such as this. There being still only one species in the genus, and one designation possible, the present wording does not sound appropriate. Further, there is no reference to the misidentified type-species. ”’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Leprota Melichar, 1912, Abh. k.-k. zool. bot. Ges. Wien 7 : 33, 91, pl. 111, figs. 14, 15 melichari, Leprota, Fennah, 1963, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 303 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)11 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 751. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 8 August 1965 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 752 BORIOMYIA BANKS, 1904 (INSECTA, NEUROPTERA): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES RULING.—(1) The application for the suppression under the plenary powers of Boriomyia Banks, 1904, is hereby refused. (2) The generic name Boriomyia Banks, 1904 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation by Killington, 1937, Hemerobius fidelis Banks, 1897, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1692. (3) The specific name fidelis Banks, 1897, as published in the binomen Hemerobius fidelis (type-species of Boriomyia Banks, 1904) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2102. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1531) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in April 1962 by Mr. D. E. Kimmins. Mr. Kimmins’s application was sent to the printer on 21 May 1962 and was published on 12 July 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 305- 306. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21: 184). The proposals were supported by Dr. Bo Tjeder (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 331-333), Dr. Willy Eglin (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 194), Dr. Herbert Holzel and Prof. Phillip A. Adams. Objections by Prof. F. M. Carpenter and Dr. Ellis G. MacLeod were published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 91 and 193 respectively. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 26 March 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)12 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 306. That Voting Paper also carried the following note: “‘ If a majority of Commissioners vote against the use of the plenary powers in the present case, then Boriomyia Banks, 1904, and Boriomyia fidelis Banks, 1897, will be placed on the Official Lists.” At the close of the prescribed voting period on 26 June 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—ten (10), received in the following order: Vokes, Obruchey, Boschma, Jaczewski, Brinck, Riley, Tortonese, Uchida, Bonnet, Stoll. Negative votes—fourteen (14): China, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mayr, Simpson, Lemche, do Amaral, Sabrosky, Evans, Forest, Binder, Mertens, Kraus, Ride. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Commissioners Miller and Munroe returned late negative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Prof. Ernst Mayr (26.iv.65): “‘ The name Kimminsia rather than Boriomyia 1905 is used in the majority of the important publications between 1937 and 1962. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. : E Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 Under these circumstances a use of the plenary powers for the suppression of Kimminsia (by selection of a new type for Boriomyia) seems not justified. ” Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (24.v.65): ‘‘ Cases where names have appeared in lists or short papers in advance of their appearance in a comprehensive revision or monograph are all too frequent, and often unfortunate. But Dr. Carpenter’s comments show that Banks himself accepted the objective reality of priority in publication, and I believe that the Commission should also do so. Obviously the specialists are not united in objecting to strict application of the pertinent rules. ” Dr. J. Forest (11.vi.65): “‘ Les arguments exposés par F. M. Carpenter et par E. G. MacLeod contre l’usage des pleins pouvoirs dans le présent cas sont tout a fait convaincants. La validation de Boriomyia Banks, 1904, conforme- ment aux régles, parait étre la procedure la plus favorable a la stabilité de la Nomenclature. ” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Boriomyia Banks, 1904, Proc. ent. Soc. Washington 6 : 209 fidelis, Hemerobius, Banks, 1897, Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 24 : 27 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for the genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Boriomyia Banks, 1904 : Killington, 1937, Mon. Brit. Neur. 2 : 253 (Ray Soc., London) CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)12 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper as the original proposal for the use of the plenary powers has not been adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 752. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 9 August 1965 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 753 CONUS CLAVUS LINNAEUS, 1758; CONUS MINIMUS LINNAEUS, 1758; CONUS RUSTICUS LINNAEUS, 1758; AND CONUS SENATOR LINNAEUS, 1758 (GASTROPODA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) clavus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Conus clavus; (b) minimus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Conus minimus; (c) rusticus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Conus rusticus; (d) senator Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Conus senator. (2) The following specific names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) clavus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Conus clavus (Name No. 833); (b) minimus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Conus minimus (Name No. 834); (c) rusticus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Conus rusticus (Name No. 835); (d) senator Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Conus senator (Name No. 836). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1558) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Alan J. Kohn in July 1962. Dr. Kohn’s application was sent to the printer on 4 October 1962 and was published on 12 July 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 309- 312. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184). The proposals were supported by Dr. Alan Solem. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 26 March 1965 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)13 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 312. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 26 June 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Obruchev, Alvarado, Boschma, Mayr, Simpson, Jaczewski, Lemche, do Amaral, Brinck, Riley, Munroe, Tortonese, Uchida, Evans, Forest, Bonnet, Stoll, Binder, Mertens, Kraus. Negative votes—two (2): Sabrosky, Ride. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 Commissioner Miller returned a late affirmative vote. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Prof. G. G. Simpson (26.iv.65): “ For reasons stated in connection with Z.N.(S.) 569 I do not believe that the Commission’s decision should include the words ‘all four of which are nomina dubia’. The argument for stability is adequate and warrants adoption of the proposals with that deletion made. ” Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (24.v.65): “I am opposed in principle to Commission action on nomina dubia.” Dr. W. D. L. Ride (25.vi.65): “‘ This case should be dealt with under the normal provisions of the Code. If the names are not in common use and have not been used for taxa during the last fifty years they should be dealt with under Article 23b. “If they have been used (and the application makes no statement as to whether or not they are uniformly regarded as not identifiable) then stability might best be served by stabilizing them in this usage by the selection of neo- types. “ Finally, if the author can present a case to show that any of the names is not a nomen oblitum and is liable to upset or threaten stability, then he should make an application for the use of the plenary powers on those grounds. ” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: clavus, Conus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 716 minimus, Conus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 714 rusticus, Conus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 714 senator, Conus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 714 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)13 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 753. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 9 August 1965 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 754 CRASSISPIRA SWAINSON, 1840 (GASTROPODA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designation of type-species for the nominal genus Crassispira Swainson, 1840, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Pleurotoma bottae Valenciennes, 1839- 1840, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Crassispira Swainson, 1840 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Pleurotoma bottae Valenciennes, [1839-1840], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1693. (3) The specific name bottae Valenciennes, [1839-1840], as published in the binomen Pleurotoma bottae (type-species of Crassispira Swainson, 1840) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2103. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 459) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr., in April 1950. A revised version of Dr. Baily’s application was sent to the printer on 31 January 1963 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 345-346. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two malacological serials. The proposals were. supported by Dr. Carl L. Hubbs. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 26 March 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)14 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 345-346. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 26 June 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Mayr, Obruchev, Alvarado, Boschma, Simpson, Jaczewski, Lemche, do Amaral, Brinck, Riley, Tortonese, Munroe, Uchida, Evans, Forest, Bonnet, Stoll, Binder, Mertens, Kraus, Ride. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Commissioner Miller returned a late affirmative vote. Commissioner Sabrosky returned a conditional vote with the following comment: “I do not oppose the intent of the proposal to resolve confusion and fix Pleurotoma bottae Valenciennes as type. However, it seems absurd to suppress Hermannsen’s designation of bottae Valenciennes, and then under the plenary powers to designate the same species as type of the genus. Why not simply accept Hermannsen’s designation, by construing that in view of the short interval of Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. —— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 time between the publication of Valenciennes(in Kiener 1839-1840) and Swainson 1840, the latter’s expression ‘ auct.’ must have been intended to include Valenciennes? (If the wording of the decision can be altered along these lines, you can record me in favour.) ” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Crassispira Swainson, 1840, Treastise Malac.: 151, 313 bottae, Pleurotoma, Valenciennes, [1839-1840], in Kiener, Spec. Gén. Icon. Coquilles Vivantes 5 : 33 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)14 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 754. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 August 1965 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PAN OKEN, 1816, AND PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (MAMMALIA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.NA(S.) 482 By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London) The present case is a revision of one submitted to the Commission in 1950 in accordance with the note published by the Assistant Secretary of the Commis- sion in 1963 at the beginning of Volume 20, Part 2, of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This note, which requested authors of cases submitted before 1959 to revise and resubmit them, has only just come to my attention. 2. The two names in question were first published by Lorenz Oken in Volume 3 of his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte 1816, a work rejected by the Commission for nomenclatorial purposes, in Opinion 417, published in 1956. At the same time, the International Commission invited zoologists to submit applications for validation under the plenary powers of any name published in the Lehrbuch the rejection of which would, in their opinion, lead to instability or confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned. In my 1950 application I requested that 7 genera with their type-species should be placed on the Official Lists. Only Pan and Panthera are now required to be dealt with in this way, and for the following reasons. 3. Pan. After earlier usages of Simia, and Anthropopithecus which still appears from time to time, zoologists generally have now settled down with Pan for chimpanzees. To introduce yet one more change, to Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, when the Commission invite us to stabilise with Pan would hardly contrib- ute to stability. There would be yet one more name in medical, and anthropo- logical, etc. works and it would have to be explained by future authors that when they refer to Chimpansee they are really also referring to the animal called Pan in previous works. And if it be thought that Chimpansee is an attractive proposition as being self-explanatory it should be remembered that there are published grounds for holding that gorillas and chimpanzees should be placed in the same genus. If gorillas came to be called Chimpansee there could be some confusion in zoology, let, alone amongst practical users of zoology for whom straightforward stability has greater appeal than the finer and more esoteric points of pure priority. 4. Panthera. The usage of this name for the great cats is now well established and universally understood. If we do not accept the Commission’s invitation to stabilise it the next available name seems to be Leo Brehm, 1829. To begin, now, to refer to tigers as Leo tigris, and leopards as Leo pardus etc. would seem unhelpfully to confuse matters. 5. Prior to the publication of Opinion 417 the Oken names had been rejected by Cabrera, 1932, and by Hershkovitz, 1949, but G. Gaylord Simpson had supported the validation of Pan and Panthera in a letter to the International Commission dated 19 October, 1950. 6. Pan Oken Stiles and Orleman, 1927, studied the problem of the nomenclature of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. ne Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 Chimpanzee in considerable detail and came to the conclusion (p. 59) that the correct name for the Chimpanzee was Simia satyrus L. 1758. But in 1929 this name was suppressed by the Commission in Opinion 114. Consequently, the valid name under the Rules is Chimpansee troglodytes (Blumenbach), 1779. Although Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, is the generic name accepted by Hershkovitz, 1949 (J. Mammal. 30 : 296) as the valid pertinent name, he points out that the name Pan can be attributed to Palmer, 1904 (Index Gen. Mamm. : 508, 902) who cited it from Oken. Following the publication of Opinion 417 in 1956 it is now possible to conserve the name Pan as dating from Oken, 1816. 7.. Panthera Oken. According to J. A. Allen, 1902 (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 16 - 378) the type of Oken’s genus Panthera is P. vulgaris Oken which he stated was practically identical with Leopardus Gray, 1867. Hershkovitz, 1949, dates Panthera from Palmer, 1904 (Index Gen. Mamm. : 509) who cited it from Oken pp. 1052-1066, and accepts Allen’s 1902 type-selection as Panthera vulgaris (Sp. 7 in Oken). He points out that Panthera Severtzow, 1858, is preoccupied by Panthera Hubner, 1823, in Insecta, Lepidoptera. This name is not now in use in Lepi- doptera having been regarded as a homonym of Panthera Oken and given the replacement name Pantherodes by Guenée in 1857. By Opinion 417, however, Panthera Hibner, 1823 again becomes available. Therefore, in order to conserve the names Panthera in Mammalia and Pantherodes in Lepidoptera, it is necessary to validate Panthera Oken, 1816, under the plenary powers. As shown by Hershkovitz (Joc. cit. p. 298) there is difficulty in identifying P. vulgaris Oken which Allen selected as type-species of Panthera Oken. Hershkovitz concludes that this type-species must be the S. American Felis colocolo (Oken p. 1052). It is, therefore, necessary when conserving Panthera Oken, to designate a type-species under the plenary powers (for example Felis pardus L. 1758). 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to take the following action: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to validate the generic name Pan Oken, 1816, as allowed by Opinion 417, and to designate Simia troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779, as the type-species; (b) to validate the generic name Panthera Oken, 1816, as allowed by Opinion 417, and to designate Felis pardus L. 1758, as the type- species ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Pan Oken, 1816 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Simia troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779 (The Chimpanzee); (b) Panthera Oken, 1816 (gender : feminine), type-species by designa- tion under the plenary powers (1) (b) above, Felis pardus Linnaeus, 1758 (The Leopard); 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (3) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Theranthropus Brookes, 1828, Cat. Anat. Zool. Mus. : 28. (b) Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, Cuvier’s Das Thierreich 1 : 76 (c) Anthropopithecus Blainville, 1838, Ann. Franc. et Etr. Anat. Phys Il : 360, as junior objective synonyms of Pan Oken, 1816; (d) Panthera Hiibner, 1823, Zutr. Exot. Schmett. Il : 25, (a junior homonym of Panthera Oken, 1816). (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the binomen Simia troglodytes (type-species of Pan Oken, 1816); (b) pardus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Felis pardus (type-species of Panthera Oken, 1816). REFERENCES ALLEN, J. A. 1902. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 16 : 378 BLAINVILLE, H. D. de, 1838. Ann. Frang. et Etr. Anat. Phys. I : 360 BLUMENBACH, J. F. 1779. Handb. Naturgesch : 65 Brookes, J. 1828. Cat. Anat. Zool. Mus. : 28 CABRERA, A. 1932. Trab. Mus. Cienc. Nat. Madrid, zool. ser. No. 17 : 106 HersHkKovitz, P. 1949. J. Mammal. 30, No. 3 : 289-307 Husner. 1823. Zutr Sammi. exot. Schmett. I : 25 LinngeAus, C. 1758. Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 41 PALMER, ¥. S. 1904. Index Gen. Mamm. : 509 SEveRTzZOW, N. 1853. Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 10 : 385 ‘Stites, C. W., & ORLEMAN, M. B. 1927. Ayg. Lab. Bull., U.S. Public Health Service, No. 145 : 1-66 VoicT, F.S. 1831. Cuvier’s Das Thierreich 1 : 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 APPLICATION FOR THE STABILIZATION OF THE NAME CERATOPHYLLUS SORICIS DALE, 1878 (INSECTA, SIPHONAPTERA) BY ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEOTYPE. Z.N.(S.) 1618. By G. H. E. Hopkins, (Honorary Associate, British Museum (Natural History)) Ceratophyllus soricis was described in a few quite undiagnostic words by Dale in 1878 (History of Glanville’s Wootton in the County of Dorset... :291). The name was originally spelt sorecis, but as the material was from “ shrews ” this ts an obvious misspelling of soricis, to which the name was corrected by Dale in his own copy of the book (now in the library of the Zoological Museum, Tring) and in print by a number of authors listed by Smit, 1952 (Ent. mon. Mag. 88 : 133). The specimens were presumably from Glanville’s Wootton or the neighbourhood. 2. The Dale collection of fleas was examined, before Dale’s death in 1906, by N. C. Rothschild, who stated (1903, Ent. mon. Mag. 39 : 145) his belief that the male specimen examined by him was indistinguishable from the species now known as Palaeopsylla minor (Dale, 1878). He also stated ‘‘ The type of this specimen is a male”, which (in spite of the slip in writing “ specimen” for ** species ’’) should perhaps be regarded as a lectotype-selection. It is possible to doubt whether at that date Rothschild could distinguish Palaeopsylla soricis (Dale), usually found on shrews, from Palaeopsylla minor (Dale), which is a mole-parasite, but it is not possible to have any reasonable doubt that the speci- men was a male member of the genus Palaeopsylla. In view of Rothschild’s findings, the name P. soricis (Dale) should not have been applied to the species of Palaeopsylla usually found on shrews, but it has been used for this species by every subsequent author for over sixty years and the species has been divided into six subspecies. 3. After Dale’s death his collection was presented to the Hope Department, University Museum, Oxford, where (and later at Tring) Mr. F. G. A. M. Smit re-examined the whole of the collection. Smit recorded (Oct. 1960, Ent. Gazette 11 : 197) that the male seen by Rothschild was no longer in the collection and that the only surviving specimen labelled Ceratophyllus soricis was a female of Leptopsylla segnis (Schénherr, 1811). This female seems to have been in Dale’s possession at the time he described Ceratophyllus soricis, so is presumably a syntype of this nominal species, but Smit (regarding Rothschild’s statement as a lectotype-selection, and in view of the loss of this specimen) designated a neo- type. He also figured the specimen in a paper (Aug. 1960, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 9 : fig. 10) which he expected to be published after the one in Ent. Gazette but which was actually published earlier. His action was in complete agreement with the universally-accepted application of the name Ceratophyllus soricis Dale, but in view of the survival of a specimen which appears to be an original syntype, it is of doubtful validity (Int. Code Zool. Nomencl. Article 75 (f)). 4. The result of acceptance of the surviving specimen labelled Ceratophyllus soricis in the Dale collection as type of this nominal species would be disastrous. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The name would not come into use but would be a junior synonym of Leptopsylla segnis (Schonherr, 1811), which is No. 116 in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, while the nominate subspecies of the species now known as Palaeopsylla soricis (Dale), and which has borne this name since 1903, would be left nameless, since there are no synonyms. I therefore appeal to the International Commis- sion to take the following action in the interests of stability of nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the original type-material of Ceratophyllus soricis Dale, 1878; (2) to recognize as neotype of this nominal species the specimen designated by Smit (Oct. 1960, Ent. Gazette 11 : 197) and figured by him in Aug. 1960 (Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Ent. 9 : fig. 10). This specimen, which is in the British Museum (Nat. History) bears on a red label the particulars “‘ Palaeopsylla soricis soricis (Dale, 1878). Bath, Somerset, 11—15.v.1914. NEOTYPEd.”’; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following name: (i) soricis, Ceratophyllus, Dale, 1878, (History of Glanville’s Wootton ., p. 291) as interpreted by the neotype designated by Smit in 1960 (Class Insecta, Order Siphonaptera); (4) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following name: (i) sorecis, Ceratophyllus, Dale, 1878 (incorrect original spelling for soricis, Ceratophyllus, Dale, 1878). 5. Noaction is required with regard to the generic name Palaeopsylla, since it is already No. 897 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, nor with _ regard to the family-group name Palaeopsyllidae Kishida, 1939 (Rep. 1st sci. Exped. Manchukuo, section V, division I, part xiii, article 77 : 2, 11, 12) since this (an objective senior synonym of Palaeopsyllini Wagner, 1939 (Bronns Klassen Ordn. Tierreichs 5 Abt. 3, Buch 13, Tl f, p. 86)) is a junior subjective synonym of Ctenophthalminae Rothschild, 1915 (Ent. mon. Mag. 51 : 77) which has been dealt with in Opinion 741 (1965, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 173-175). | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 COLUBER CHIAMETLA SHAW, 1802 (REPTILLA: SERPENTES): PROPOSED REJECTION AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1704 By Hobart M. Smith (Dept. of Zoology and Mus. of Nat. Hist., University of Illinois, Urbana) Carl Gans has recently pointed out (1964 : 35) that Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802 (p. 440) is a nomen oblitum that has never been allocated although recorded from Mexico, where the herpetofauna and its literature have been subjected to fairly careful scrutiny. As stated by Gans, Shaw based his name upon two plates and descriptions in Seba (1735 : pl. 61, fig. 1, pl. 36, fig. 4). The explanation for fig. 1 of pl. 61 of Seba has been kindly translated from the original Latin by Dr. Donald P. Rogers of the Department of Botany, Univ. of Illinois, as follows: “ Serpens, Americana, called Chiametla, located near New Gallicia and the Cullacan region whence it was brought. The natives of the Chile region and Gallicia call it in their dialect Cobra or Vilo de Chiametla; Cobra and also Vilo denote for them a serpent in Arnold Montanus p. 560; who in the same place adds that near the tract Zapuatan there occurs an immense number of serpents, myriads of which, as though rolled into a ball, with heads stretching out on all sides, with great hissing and jaws wide open, gape at their prey. The head of this serpent is thick and broad, is clothed with large pale blue scales shaded with darker blue. The skin of the supine body is covered with blue scales spotted with white but toward the tail uniformly dark blue. Toward both sides of the belly are distinguished blackish spots resembling eyes. It reaches at least two cubits in length, sustaining itself on caterpillars, ants and worms.” The explanation for fig. 4 of pl. 36 states (translated from the original Latin): “ This also is a species of Viper, an inhabitant of the island of St. Eustachius, most elegantly colored, the scales bright blue, with scattered whitish scales. The belly, or its scales, is yellowish ruddy. The head is marked like the preceding [fig. 3], except that it is covered on all sides by large blue scales. The anus is indicated by the letter D.” St. Eustachius is one of the northernmost islands of the Leeward Group of the Lesser Antilles, just north of St. Kitts. The Seba specimen from there is undoubtedly Alsophis rufiventris (Dumeéril and Bibron, 1854). The figure cited on plate 61 shows every scale with a central light area, larger on the more dorsal scales, smaller on the lateral scales. There are no marks on the head. The body is slender, the tail long, racerlike. The “ eye- like ” spots are merely black scales, each with a more sharply defined, smaller central light spot. Shaw’s name of Coluber chiametla is obviously based on plate 61, since this in turn is based upon a Chiametla snake. It therefore is reasonable to restrict the name to fig. 1 of pl. 61; since the specimen on which the drawing was based is not known to exist, I now designate that illustration the type of Shaw’s Coluber chiametla. Allocation of that name now hinges solely upon allocation of the illustration. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Chiametla is a name no longer cited on modern maps of Mexico. Several hundred years ago, however, it was a virtual commonplace. The 1783 map (Pl. 5) reproduced herewith (Doll, 1783), no doubt very similar to maps used by Seba, clearly shows New Gallicia, a territory including parts of modern Jalisco, Nayarit and Sinaloa, and a “ Chiametlan ” a short distance east of Mazatlan. The river near it—the modern Rio del Baluarte—is shown as “* Chiametla Fluvi”’ on a map dated 1595 (Bry). The spelling is “‘ Chametla ” on an 1823 map (Carey and Lea) which uses the name for both a locality and the river. Obviously the locality was well-publicized in the 18th century when Seba wrote, and its fixation a short distance south of present-day Rosario is reasonably assured. The only snake resembling the description of Coluber chiametla known from that area is Drymobius margaritiferus fistulosus Smith, 1942. There is no reasonable doubt that these two names are synonymous. The size, general pattern and body form agree excellently. Unfortunately Shaw’s name ante- dates both the sub-specific and the specific name (Herpetodryas margaritiferus Schlegel, 1837). The subspecific form has not been cited sufficiently that substitution of another name for it would concern anyone save a few specialists; the specific name however has been very widely used for the common species to which it has been applied for over 100 years. On the contrary, Coluber chiametla has not, so far as I am aware, been used as a senior synonym since 1824, when Wagler erroneously identified specimens of Liophis miliaris Linnaeus as “ Natrix chiametla Shaw ” (Gans, 1964 : 35). Accordingly Coluber chiametla Shaw qualifies as a nomen oblitum. In the interest of stability of nomenclature, Article 23b of the 1964 Code is invoked in the present request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature: (1) Declare the species-group name chiametla, as published in the com- bination Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802, unavailable for purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy; and (2) Place the species-group name chiametla of (1) above on the Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Species-Group Names in Zoology as a nomen oblitum. LITERATURE CITED Bry, THEODORE De. 1895. AHispaniae novae sive magnae, recens et vera descriptio. Frankfurt, Germany. Map only Carey, H.C.,andI. Lea. 1823. A complete historical, chronological and geographical American atlas Dott, J. 1783. Mexico, of Nieuw Spanje; ten gebruike bij de Gelchienenis der Ontdekking van America. Amsterdam, Holland. Map only GANS, CARL. 1964. A redescription of, and geographic variation in, Liophis miliaris Linné, the common water snake of south eastern South America. Amer. Mus. Novitates, (2178) : 1-58, figs. 1-23 SeBpA, ALBERT. 1735. Locupletissimi rerum naturalium thesauri accurata descriptio, et iconibus artificiosissimis expressio, per universam physices historiam. J. Wetstenium, Amsterdam, Vol. 2. 154 pp. WAGLER, JOHANN. 1824. Serpentum Brasiliensium species novae ou histoire naturelle des ... publiée par Jean de Spix. Monaco. viii, 75 pp. Pl. 5. The Doll map of Mexico, 1783. Plate 5 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22 bs re be = Pama t2r3.;| San, i ee : SN ite? SS “ Sy . 119 we. Recep» = Ane S la NAT. HIST. 12 NOV 1968 ba Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 TRYCHOSIS FOERSTER, 1868 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1712 By G. van Rossem (Plant Protection Service, Wageningen, Netherlands) In revising the genus Trychosis Foerster, I have encountered a case in which the type-species of a generic taxon has been misidentified (Article 70 (a) of the Code). The purpose of this application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to set aside all prior designations of type-species and to validate a new designation for the genus in question. 2. In 1868, Foerster (Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. 25 : 187) proposed the genus 7rychosis without naming species. The first author to use the name Trychosis Foerster was Schmiedeknecht in 1890 (Ent. Nachr. 16 : 114) placing 16 species in this taxon. Schmiedeknecht stated clearly that he considered Cryptus titillator Gravenhorst to be the type-species (“‘ Typus ist der Cr. tit. Grav. ”’). Gravenhorst, however, did not describe a new species Cryptus titillator in 1829 (Ichneumonologia Europaea 2(2) : 567), he used the binomen Cryptus titillator with Linné as the author. Consequently the type-species of the genus Trychosis Foerster, 1868, through the type selection by Schmiedeknecht (1890) is Ichneumon titillator Linnaeus, 1758. A. Roman, 1932, (Ent. Tidskr. 53 : 13) has investigated Linné’s type series of Jchneumon titillator and indicated no. 5 as the true Jchneumon titillator Linné, without using the term lectotype. To fix his conclusion, the lectotype of Ichneumon titillator Linné, 1758, is here- with selected as no. 5 in Linné’s collection in London. The specimen belongs to the species that was later described by Fabricius (Syst. Piez. : 85(1804)) under the name Cryptus recreator, and which in modern literature is still assigned to the genus Cryptus Fabricius, 1804. Consequently, since the type- species of the genera Trychosis Foerster, 1868, and Cryptus Fabricius, 1804, at present are considered to belong to the same genus, these two are subjective synonyms and if the Rules are strictly applied, the name 7rychosis Foerster has to disappear as a junior synonym. However, at present the name Trychosis Foerster, is commonly used for an entirely different group of Ichneumonids, which includes Cryptus mesocastanus Tschek, 1870, a species which has been incorrectly identified by many authors with the name Cryptus titillator. Also Schmiedeknecht (1890) made this error. He thus incorrectly identified the species which he selected to be the type-species of Trychosis. 3. Itis suggested, that in the interest of stability, the generic name Trychosis Foerster is retained. Recently it has been used in some major papers viz., by Muesebeck & Krombein (1951) in Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico; by Townes & Townes (1962) in Ichneumon-Flies of America North of Mexico 3. Subfam. Gelinae (many species); by J. F. Perkins (1962) in On the Type-Species of Foerster’s Genera. I investigated the type material of Cryptus mesocastanus Tschek, 1870 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 20 : 144) and found this species to be identical with Cryptus titillator auctorum non Linné and I propose therefore Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. . 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature that the Commission indicate Tschek’s species as the type-species of the genus Trychosis, conforming to the intention of Schmiedeknecht (1890). As far as I have been able to investigate, Cryptus mesocastanus Tschek, 1870, is the oldest valid binomen for the species in question. The specific name fitillator L. is now to be used for the species formerly known as Cryptus recreator Fabr., 1804. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Trychosis Foerster, 1868, made prior to the ruling now re- quested and, having done so, to designate as the type-species of that genus the species Cryptus mesocastanus Tschek, 1870; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Trychosis Foerster, 1868 (Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. 25 : 187) (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above: Cryptus mesocastanus Tschek, 1870; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) mesocastanus Tschek, 1870 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 20 : 144) as published in the binomen Cryptus mesocastanus (type-species of Trychosis Foerster, 1868); (b) titillator Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 565) as published in the binomen Ichneumon titillator, and fixed by the lectotype selected in the present paper. The genus Trychosis belongs to the family Ichneumonidae, subfamily Cryptinae. The generic name itself has so far not been used as the basis for a family name. aap cons science = Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261 PROSPALTELLA ASHMEAD, 1904 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA, CHALCIDOIDEA, APHELINIDAE): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N~(S.) 1713 By M. N. Nikolskaya and V. A. Trjapitzin (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad) The generic name Prospaltella was published by Ashmead (1904, Proc. Entom. Soc. Washington 6 : 126) who substituted it for the name Prospalta Howard (1894), preoccupied by Walker (1857). As the type-species of Prospalta Howard, Ashmead designated Prospalta murtfeldtii Howard, the only species first described in the genus Prospalta Howard (1894, Ins. Life 7: 6). When the generic name was changed to Prospaltella Ashmead this species became the type- species of the genus automatically (see the paragraphs 67i and 68c of the Code) which is fixed in the list of the type-species of the genera of Chalcidoidea by Gahan and Fagan (1923, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 124: 121}: 2. However, Howard himself indicated as the type-species of the genus (1907, U.S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Entom., Techn. ser. 12(4) : 79) the species Prospalta aurantii (Howard) described by him (1894, Insect Life 6 : 231) in the genus Coccophagus Westwood and transferred later into the genus Prospalta (Howard, 1895, U.S. Dept. Agr., Div. Entom., Techn. ser. 1: 41). 3. In its habitus, structure of antennae, form of the head and stigmal vein of the fore wing (Howard, loc. cit. : 39, fig. 12) Prospaltella murtfeldtii (Howard) differs much from Prospaltella aurantii (Howard) (ibid. : 41, fig. 13), and according to the modern classification of Aphelinidae belongs to the genus Coccophagoides Girault (1915, Mem. Queensland Mus. 4: 58) together with Coccophagoides similis (Masi). 4. Thus, if the type-species of the genus Prospaltella Ashmead (1904) is declared to be Prospalta murtfeldtii Howard the junior synonym of the genus should be Coccophagoides Girault (1915) and to the species of Prospaltella as those like Prospaltella aurantii (Howard) a new generic name should be given. 5. However, such a change in nomenclature is very inconvenient as many species of the presently used Prospaltella, viz. P. aurantii (Howard), P. berlesei (Howard), P. perniciosi Tower are well known to the economic entomologists as the effective parasites of the scale insects used in the biological control. Their names are applied in the world entomological literature. Prospaltella became familiar in many European languages giving birth to technical terms like: prospaltelize, prospaltelization. 6. In accordance with the above, the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Prospaltella Ashmead, 1904, made prior to the Ruling now requested, and having done so to designate the nominal species Coccophagus aurantii Howard, 1894, to be the type-species of that genus; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the generic name Prospaltella Ashmead, 1904, (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Coccophagus aurantii Howard, 1894, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name aurantii Howard, 1894, as published in the binomen Coccophagus aurantii (type-species of Prospaltella Ashmead, 1904) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Pwr, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 MULLUS AURIFLAMMA FORSSKAL, 1775 (PISCES): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1714 By Jorgen G. Nielsen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Wolfgang Klausewitz (Senckenberg-Museum, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) In the course of a revision of the fish types described by Forsskal,* it was detected that the type specimen of Mullus auriflamma Forsskal, 1775 (Descrip- tiones Animalium : X, 30), did not fit the concept of auriflamma Auctt., but belongs or is closely related to the species generally known as Parupeneus barberinus (Lacépéde, 1802) (Hist. Nat. Poissons 3 : 406). The strict applica- tion of the rules in this case will cause endless confusion as both the species involved are common in the same area. In order to prevent future confusion it is hereby requested that auriflamma Forsskal, 1775, be suppressed for the purpose of priority. The details of the case are set out below: 1. Forsskal (1775, Descriptiones Animalium: X, 30) described a species, Mullus auriflamma, of which the type specimen is still in Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen. 2. Lacépéde (1802, Hist. Nat. Poissons 3 : 406) described the two species of the genus Mullus involved in the present case, namely flavolineatus and barberinus, of which the former is now referred to the genus Mulloidichthys Whitley, 1929 (type-species Mullus flavolineatus Lacépéde, 1802, selected by Jordan (1917, Genera of Fishes)), and the latter to Parupeneus Bleeker, 1863, (type-species Mullus bifasciatus Lacépéde, 1802, selected by Jordan (1917, Gen. of Fishes)). 3. Weber & Beaufort (1931, Fish. Indo-Austr. Archip. 6 : 376) following the general opinion, considered auriflamma to be the oldest name in existence for the species called flavolineatus by Lacépéde, and gave 43 references; 19 of these referred to papers in which flavolineatus was used, and 14 to papers using the name auriflamma for the same species. Ten other references concerned papers in which six other synonyms were used. While the book by Weber & Beaufort has greatly favoured the subsequent usage of the name auriflamma, flavolineatus has not completely disappeared. 4. A study of Forsskal’s type specimen showed, however, that this belongs to the species that has always been called barberinus. Weber & Beaufort (1931 : 392) cited 27 references, all using the same name, and usage of barberinus has continued to be employed since then. According to the rules, the name auriflamma Forsskal should now be removed from the species for which the oldest available name is flavolineatus Lacépéde, and transferred to the genus Parupeneus, thereby replacing the well-established name barberinus. 5. It is suggested, however, that it would be preferable to suppress auri- flamma for the purpose of priority, thereby retaining the two unambiguous names, flavolineatus and barberinus. * Incorrectly spelt Forskal in the posthumous work published by Niebuhr in 1775. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature It is therefore suggested that the International Commission should: (1) suppress, under the plenary powers, the specific name auriflamma Forsskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Mullus auriflamma, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonomy; (2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Mulloidichthys Whitley, 1929 (gender : masculine), type-species by designation by Jordan (1917), through Mulloides Bleeker, 1849, Mullus flavolineatus, Lacépéde, 1802; (b) Parupeneus Bleeker, 1863 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Jordan, 1917, Mullus bifasciatus Lacépéde, 1802; (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) flavolineatus Lacépéde, 1802, as published in the binomen Mullus flavolineatus (type-species of Mulloidichthys Whitley, 1929); (b) bifasciatus Lacépéde, 1802, as published in the binomen Mullus bifasciatus (type-species of Parupeneus Bleeker, 1863); (c) barberinus Lacépéde, 1802, as published in the binomen Mullus barberinus ; (4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name auriflamma Forsskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Mullus auriflamma (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION AGAINST THE SUPPRESSION OF NOMINA DUBIA. Z.N.(S.) 1715 By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.) Several recent applicants have asked the Commission to suspend the Rules and suppress nomina dubia, in each case for purposes of the Law of Priority but not for purposes of the Law of Homonymy (cf. Code, Article 79a, ii). It is the purpose of the present application to request the Commission to issue a statement of policy that such cases are not to be submitted to the Commission. 2. A Section on “ Nomina dubia ”’ appeared in the Bradley Draft of the Code (Article 5, Section 5; cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 46, 1957), based on a passage adopted at the Copenhagen Congress. That section was considered at the London Congress, and was deleted in its entirety on the grounds that the normal processes of taxonomy could and should apply, and that the Code need not contain special provisions for treating such names. 3. In the cases recently submitted to the Commission, the applicants did not demonstrate any threat to a well known name, or to any name; indeed, if the description is unrecognizable and the type is lost, there will rarely if ever be any threat. On the rare occasions when a long-lost and authentic type of a nomen dubium suddenly comes to light, it may still not be specifically identifiable (broken, immature, or wrong sex or stage). Even if identifiable, it may be a junior synonym, or prove to be a junior homonym when referred to its zoologic- ally correct genus. Even if it proves to be a valid name, it may represent a hitherto unknown species and the name could be used (many species still are known only from the type specimen!). Even if it is found to be the senior synonym of a name in current use, the junior name that is threatened may be of little or no consequence, and the use of priority would disturb no one. If it survives all these chances and is an honest threat to a really important name, then and only then should the plenary powers be invoked. 4. It should be noted that the names are to be retained for purposes of the Law of Homonymy, as prescribed by the Code (Article 79a, ii). Thus the requested suppression does not lighten the burden of the taxonomist; he must still carry along the names in catalogues and consider them in homonymy. In addition, if they are suppressed, he must cite an opinion! 5. In view of the decision of the London Congress to delete provisions governing nomina dubia, it is inappropriate—perhaps even unauthorized and illegal, in a sense—for the Commission to accept and process applications to suppress nomina dubia. If it is argued that applicants can nevertheless ask for suppression under the plenary powers, it can be pointed out that those powers are to be used only if the application of relevant provisions of the Code “‘ to a particular case would in its judgment disturb stability or universality or cause confusion” (Article 79). Those criteria unquestionably do not apply to a disturbance that does not now exist in fact and that is extremely unlikely ever to exist. The Commission should be freed as much as possible from the work load of unnecessary cases. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. Accordingly the Commission is requested to issue a Declaration that will formulate in words the intent of the London Congress regarding nomina dubia, namely that any nomen dubium is to be handled under normal taxonomic proce- dures, and its suppression is not to be requested unless and until it actually becomes a threat to an important name (by which time, of course, it is no longer a nomen dubium). 7. It would also be desirable for the Commission to note in the Declaration that neotypes cannot be proposed for nomina dubia merely to revive long-unused names. Such cases would be excluded under Article 75b. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267 CHAMAEMYIA MEIGEN, 1803 (INSECTA, DIPTERA, CHAMAEMYIIDAE); PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1716 By J. F. McAlpine (Entomology Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario) and Curtis W. Sabrosky (Entomology Research Division, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.) This application is concerned with the genus Chamaemyia Meigen, type- genus of the common and widespread family CHAMAEMYIIDAE, and a threat to its stability that involves the type-genus of another family of Diptera. 2. Meigen (1803, Illiger’s Magazin fiir Insektenkunde 2 : 278) established the genus Chamaemyia but included no nominal species. When he finally treated the genus in volume 6 (1830) of his comprehensive work, ‘‘ Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweiflugeligen Insekten ’’, he included seven species but abandoned his own prior name in favour of Ochtiphila Fallén (1823) (spelled Ochthiphila in Meigen). Meanwhile, however, each of two other authors had placed a single species in Chamaemyia. In 1807, Illiger (revised edition of Rossi’s Fauna Etrusca) associated Musca flava Linnaeus (1758) with Chamaemyia, and Panzer (1806-1809, Fauna Insectorum Germanica, Heft 105 : 12) named and figured a new species, Chamaemyia elegans Panzer (as “* Chamaemya elegans Meigen”). Under Article 69a (ii) (2) of the International Code, one or the other of these species is the type-species of Chamaemyia by subsequent monotypy. 3. Panzer’s work, at least the Heft in question, cannot be dated exactly. Sherborn (1923, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 11 : 567) after exhaustive research could ascertain only that Hefts 101-107 were issued sometime between 1806 and 1809. Thus the precise date of Heft 105 is uncertain, in comparison with that of Illiger (1807). But Panzer’s figure of elegans left no doubt of its identity. It has always been one of the best recognized species in the family, and the concept of Chamaemyia has always been firmly based upon it. 4. On the other hand, IIliger’s (1807) reference of Musca flava Linnaeus to Chamaemyia, which may well have been prior to the action by Panzer, was unnoticed (or ignored) by dipterists, and the significance of this early reference was noted only recently by Dr. J. R. Vockeroth. Musca flava Linnaeus is the senior subjective synonym of Chyromya fenestrarum Robineau-Desvoidy, type- species of Chyromya Robineau Desvoidy (1830), type-genus of the family CHYROMYIDAE, a small and relatively minor, although common, family of Diptera. Thus if flava were considered to be the type-species of Chamaemyia by subsequent monotypy, Chyromya would fall as a synonym of Chamaemyia, the latter would be transferred from the family now known as the CHAMAE- MYIIDAE, which would need to be renamed, to that now known as the CHyRO- MYIDAE, which would apparently have to be renamed the CHAMAEMYIIDAE because the family-group name founded on Chamaemyia is older than that founded on Chyromya. The confusion attendant upon the interchange of two type-genera of common families and the family names based upon them is obvious and clearly undesirable. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. Accordingly, to resolve the problem of type fixation for the genus Chamaemyia Meigen (1803), and to avoid confusion in the names and concepts of the families CHAMAEMYIIDAE and CHYROMYIDAE, the International Commission is hereby requested to take the following actions: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the subsequent monotypy published by Illiger, 1807, and to designate as type-species of Chamaemyia Meigen, 1803, the species Chamaemyia elegans Panzer 1806-1809; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Chamaemyia Meigen, 1803, Illiger’s Magazin fiir Insektenkunde 2 : 278 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Chamaemyia elegans Panzer (1806-1809) ; (b) Chyromya Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Essai sur les Myodaires : 620 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Chyromya fenestrarum Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, op. cit., p. 621 [which is a junior subjective synonym of Chyromya flava (Linnaeus)]. (3) to place the following on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) the specific name elegans Panzer, (1806-1809), Fauna Insectorum Germanica, Heft 105, p. 12, as published in the binomen Chamae- mylija elegans Panzer (type-species of Chamaemyia Meigen, 1803); (b) the specific name flava Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae (ed. 10) 1: 600, as published in the binomen Musca flava Linnaeus [senior subjective synonym of Chyromya fenestrarum Robineau- Desvoidy, 1830]. (4) to place the following on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology: (a) the family name CHAMAEMYIIDAE Hendel, 1910, Wien. Ent. Ztg. 29 : 313 (as Chamaemyiinae) ; (b) the family name CHYROoMYIDAE Hendel, 1916, Ent. Mitt. 5 : 297. -_— oe 2. oP” ' ge Tt My t-) ae a ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269 X YLEBORUS BOWDICH, 1825 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1720 By R. T. Thompson (British Museum (Nat. Hist.), London) The purpose of this application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the widely used, firmly founded name Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864 and to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the earlier but forgotten and enigmatic name Xyleborus Bowdich, 1825. The facts are as follows: 2. Xyleborus was established by Bowdich in 1825 (pp. xii, 149: figs. 35a—d) for a single species, citri Bowdich, a “‘ worm ” which he found in the wood of orange trees in Madeira and which he placed in “ . . . the second family of the third order of Cuvier’s class, annelides...” It is listed as belonging to the Annelida by Sherborn, 1925 but Neave, 1940, places it in the Buprestidae (Insecta, Coleoptera). No other published references are known. 3. Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864 (p. 37), was erected for six species of Scolytidae (Insecta, Coleoptera) and has since been applied to more than a thousand nominal species, some of which are of considerable economic importance. Its type-species is Bostrichus monographus Fabricius, 1792 (p. 365) which was designated by Lacordaire, 1866 (p. 381) and again by Hopkins, 1914 (p. 132); The same species is also cited as type by Schedl, 1962 (p. 103). No other type- designations have been made. 4. If the Laws of Priority and Homonymy are allowed to operate in this Case, grave confusion will clearly result. Therefore, in the interest of nomen- clatural stability and current usage, the Commission is asked: (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Xyleborus Bowdich, 1825, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (b) to place the generic name Y¥ yleborus Eichhoff, 1864 (gender: masculine), type-species by designation by Lacordaire, 1866, Bostrichus monographus Fabricius, 1792, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (c) to place the specific name monographus Fabricius, 1792, as publish- ed in the binomen Bostrichus monographus (type-species of Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (d) to place the generic name X¥ yleborus Bowdich, 1825 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. APPENDIX NOTE ON XYLEBORUS CITRI BOWDICH, 1825 By E. A. J. Duffy (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) Bowdich’s description of the larva “ Xyleborus ” and the accompanying figures are so lacking in det&il and accuracy (even with regard to the segmenta- Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965. 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature tion) that there is little to suggest, let alone indicate, which family or order of insects is concerned. Of the four possible orders, viz. Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera and Hymenoptera, the last three can be discounted because of the tapering body, the well-developed mandibles and/or the absence of well-develop- ed thoracic legs and pseudopods. In the Coleoptera, there appear to be only three possible families which could be implicated, namely the Buprestidae, Throscidae and the Cerambycidae. At first reading, there are certain remarks which are perhaps more generally characteristic of the first, such as the fact that the Citrus trees were apparently healthy prior to infestation by “ Xyleborus”’; that the larval gallery was “ circuitous”; and that the body “ terminates almost in a point’’. From the illustration it is clear that the degree of tapering has been grossly exaggerated. There appears to be only one (endemic) buprestid on the island — an Agrilus the larva of which would undoubtedly terminate in a pair of “ points ” or caudal processes which would almost certainly be strongly sclerotised and pitchy. It is the ambiguity of Fig. 35d which is the most difficult to interpret. Unfortu- nately there is no direct reference to this figure but it is obviously a frontal view of the head capsule showing the mandibles. The point is whether the mandibles can be regarded as being short, thick and gouge-shaped (Cerambycidae, Buprestidae) or whether they are produced and curved outwards (Throscidae). The author refers to ‘“‘ a small spine on each side of the upper part of each of the four first rings ” (my italics). This can, I feel, only be interpreted as meaning that the larva possesses three pairs of small but distinct thoracic legs. This could apply either to the Throscidae (there is one endemic species on the island) or the Cerambycidae, but the obviously robust nature of the body makes the latter the more likely. Maybe the species concerned is still quite common — perhaps even a minor pest of Citrus so it should be possible to collect further material in order to chaos REFERENCES BA, T.E. 1825. Excursions in Madeira and Porto Santo during the autumn of 823, while on his third voyage to Africa. London, xii + 278 pp., 11 pls, 57 figs. (in 10 pls.) ErcuHorr, W. J. 1864. Ueber die Mundtheile und die Fiihlerbildung der europai- schen Xylophaga sens. strict. Berl. ent. Z. 8 : 17-46 Fasricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologica Systematica Emendata et Aucta. Vol. 1, pt. 2. Hafniae, 538 pp. Hopkins, A. D. 1914. List of generic names and their type-species in the coleopterous superfamily Scolytoidea. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 48 : 115-136 LACORDAIRE, T. 1866. Histoire naturelle des insects. Genera des Coléoptéres. Vol. 7. Paris, (iv) + 620 pp. NeAve, S. A. 1940. Nomencl. zool. 4 : 1-758 ScHEDL, K. E. 1962. Scolytidae und Platypodidae Afrikas. Part 2. Revta Ent. Mogamb. 5 : 1-594 SHERBORN, C. D. 1922-1932. Index Animalium 1801-1850. London, cxxxii + 7056 pp. . INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman: The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director: Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant: Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Opinions Opinion 749 (Atherina japonica Houttuyn, 1782) .. Opinion 750 (Melissodes fonscolombei Romand, 1841) Opinion 751 (Leprota Melichar, 1912) ag Opinion 752 (Boriomyia Banks, 1904) Opinion 753 (Four Linnaean species of Conus) Opinion 754 (Crassispira Swainson, 1840) .. New Cases Pan Oken, 1816, and Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia): Proposed con- servation under the plenary powers (T. C. S. Morrison-Scott) Application for the stabilization of the name Ceratophyllus soricis Dale, 1878 (Insecta, Siphonaptera) by establishment of a aeons (G. H. E. Hopkins) Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802 (Reptilia): Proposed rejection as a nomen oblitum (Hobart M. Smith) .. Eucidaris Pomel, 1883, Papula Bayle, 1878, Cidaris papillataconoidea Parkinson, 1811 and Cidaris savignyi Audouin, 1826, Proposed suppression: coupled with validation of Eucidaris Déderlein, 1887, Steriocidaris Pomel, 1883 and Diadema savignyi Michelin, 1846 (Echinoidea) (A. M. Clark and H. G. Owen) : Phasia Latrielle, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed designation of a a type-species under the plenary powers (B. Herting) . Crioceris sexpunctata Fabricius, 1792 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed rejection as a nomen oblitum (Ray F. Smith) Papilio lintingensis Osbeck, 1765 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (N. D. Riley) : Monopsyllus Kolenati, 1857 (Insecta, Siphonaptera) and related matters (G. H. E. Hopkins) py: Stizus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary powers (R. M. Bohart and A. S. Menke) A ey as ya er Ji Page 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 233 235 237 243 246 248 250 255 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Diodontus Curtis, 1834 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (R. M. Bohart and A.S. Menke) .. Trychosis Foerster, 1868 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (G. van Rossem) Prospaltella Ashmead, 1904 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (M. N. Nikolskaya and V. A. Trjapitzin) Mullus auriflamma Forsskal, 1775 (Pisces): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Jorgen G. Nielsen and Wolfgang Klausewitz) Request for a Declaration against the suppression of nomina dubia (Curtis W. Sabrosky) Chamaemyia Meigen, 1803 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (J. F. McAlpine and Curtis W. Sabrosky) : Xyleborus Bowdich, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): ‘Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (R. T. Thompson and E. A. J. Duffy) . Comments Comment on the proposed designation of a type-species for Pithecops Horsfield, 1828 (C. F. Cowan) ' Comments on the proposed validation of Cnemidophorus septemvittatus Cope, 1882 (Jay M. Savage; Hobart M. Smith; Kenneth L. Williams) Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for Mytilus (now Anodonta) anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Per Brinck; Joshua L. Baily, Jr.; C. O. van Regteren Altena; A. E. Ellis) Comment on the supplement to the application concerning the validation of Amaurobius C. L. Koch and Coelotes Blackwall (Fr. Chrysanthus, O. F. M. Cap.) .. Support for the ‘hn aie rejection of Criocerus ‘Sexpunctata Fabricius, © 1965. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment Page 257 259 261 263 265 267 269 209 211 213 216 246 Volume 22, Double Parts 5/6 31st January, 1966 pp. 271-378, T.P.-XIV THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Page Commissioner N. D. Riley, C.B.E. o ire vd bie ais if 271 Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on an is hertat in the Bulletin ef j 271 Zoological Nomenclature .. Notices of the possible use by the ies ATRAES on Zod Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases .. y 271 International Trust for Zoological Dhara sical Financial Report for 1964 : 273 (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 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1. 1966 Five Pounds (All rights reserved) DSA Ae fent: dag neve toh Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, W. EL British Histor Cromwell legate Meese: atest i Road, oes - B.The Member of the Coumiasion a 2, deal te een 7h coer acl | Ne Toxronese ies di Sain ee “G. Doria”, ve aly) (16 cso owe toed Sth Jc partment of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March ne lac Auvanavo (Museo Nacional de Clencias Naturales, Madrid, Spat) vilym Owen Ev Museum Histor. 1 1960)(S ) . ee (Natural gern Lerch ; ine “Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Assistant E, Brupen (Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, Gen Geneva, Switzerland) May 1962) ole Ss? Daf Tulane, Department in i (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., ees mh [OLTHUI ‘Ciksmuseum van Neneurite Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Professor Ernst } ative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, tts, A 190) (Comer eet oat} Histone Natocle, Paris, France) (8 August 1963) | SET hme (5 s Watanatioh Wf Obeioartahin: Untvariuy of Caliente. a-tolld Te | le Ror Gt Pet 2, Goma) ngioal Teac peat ea aaaacle USSR) (28 ee 1963) & BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE \: Volume 22, Double Parts 5/6 (pp. 271-378, T.P.—XIV) 31st January 1966 COMMISSIONER N. D. RILEY, C.B.E. Under Article 3 (b) (i) of the Constitution, Commissioner Riley’s member- ship of the Commission terminated on his 75th birthday on September 26th, 1965. Zoologists are deeply indebted to Mr. Riley for the long years he has given in the service of Nomenclature. When he was appointed Commissioner on June 9th, 1950, he had already served 39 years in the Department of Entomology, of the British Museum (Natural History), the last 18 years as Head of the Department. During this time, as a close associate of the late Dr. Karl Jordan, he had been keenly interested in zoological nomenclature. In 1958, on the retirement of the late Francis Hemming, he became Honorary Secretary of the Commission at a most difficult time. He was one of the Editorial Committee responsible for the final details of the new Code before its publication in 1961. His career is ably summed up by Commissioner Norman Stoll in his introduction to the Code. It may safely be said that Riley was one of the principal architects of zoological nomenclature as we now know it and zoologists will wish him a happy retirement. W. E. CHINA Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin: (1) Designation of a type-species for Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 758. (2) Designation of a neotype for Acarus telarius Linnaeus, 1758 (Acarina). Z.N.(S.) 1564. (3) Cancellation of Opinion 92 insofar as it deals with Calamaria Boie, 1827; validation of, and designation of a type-species for, Calamaria Boie, 1827; validation of Calamaria linnaei Schlegel, 1837; and Ruling on priority to be accorded to works of Schlegel and Boie (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 1114. (4) Validation of the emendation to Ancistrodon of Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799 (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 671. 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (5) Grant of priority to Kassina Girard, 1853, over Hylambates Duméril, 1853 (Amphibia). Z.N.(S.) 1718. (6) Suppression of the specific names americanus, guineensis, surinamensis, medusa, coffeae, costatus, niveus, oculatus, all published in the genus Conus by Gmelin, 1791 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1719. (7) Suppression of Anopheles africanus Theobald, 1901 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 1722. (8) Validation of Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1724. (9) Removal of homonymy of CHRYSOPINAE in Neuroptera and Diptera. Z.N.(S.) 1725. (10) Designation of a type-species for Erbula Stal, 1873 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.AS.) 1613. (11) Designation of a type-species for Amplexizaphrentis Vaughan, 1906 (Anthozoa). Z.N.(S.) 1669. (12) Suppression of Astacus oreganus Randall, 1840 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1727. (13) Either, Declaration of Voluta mitra Linnaeus, 1758, as a junior objective synonym of Voluta episcopalis Linnaeus, 1758, or, suppression of Voluta mitra Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1728. (14) Validation of Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1902 (Bivalvia). Z.N.(S.) 1729. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary, London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on December 1965. Zoological Nomenclature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF APHELENCHUS STEUERI STEFANSKI, 1916 (NEMATODA). Z.N.(S.) 1698 By William G. Inglis (British Museum (Natural History), London). I oppose this proposal on three grounds. (1) There is no question of stability involved. (2) There is no nomenclatural problem to resolve. (3) It appears to introduce a new principle into Zoological Nomenclature. Thus, treating the first two points together, Aphelenchus steueri Stefanski, 1916, has been treated as a junior subjective synonym by at least two authors, as a species inquirenda by another and Dr. Sher suggests (in his proposal) that it is a species dubia since he says “... the original description and illustrations are considered inadequate for a proper identifi- cation...”. The only other author who has recently recognized A. steueri as a distinct valid species is Sher who lists it (1961, Nematologica 6 : 155-169) in the combination Helicotylenchus steueri after studying specimens referable to two genera and five previously described species (Sher (1965) in his proposal). Even in his paper revising the genus Rotylenchus (1965, Nematologica 11 : 173-198) Sher does not discuss A. steveri in relation to R. buxophilus Golden, 1956. Thus no question of confusing the two nominal species has ever arisen, with the exception of Sher’s applica- tion. The appropriate action appears to be simply to continue to treat A. steueri as a species inquirendum (or dubium) and to list H. steueri (which was not described, only listed) under the various species with which it was confused. R. buxophilus simply does not come into the discussion. Much more serious is the question of principle underlying this request. What Dr. Sher is really asking is that the name of a nominal species, the identity of which is uncertain (by his own admission), should be suppressed and the name of another nominal species (which has never been confused with the first) should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. It follows that, if the Commission agrees to this, a new principle will have been introduced under which the name of any nominal species can be suppressed on the grounds that the species to which it refers cannot at that time be identified. While this might be advantageous in removing the multiplicity of names which exist virtually in vacuo it would usurp what is a taxonomic decision and would be legislating in advance. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FINANCIAL REPORT 1964 The Accounts for 1964 show an excess of expenditure over income of £870 compared with a balance of income last year of £365. This is mainly due to the expenditure incurred in producing the second edition of the International Code, which was printed during the year, and the whole cost of which fell in 1964. In addition certain increases in salaries had to be made. On the income side there is an increase of £100 from interest on invest- ments but receipts from sales of publications is down by £80 so that the net result is comparable with 1963. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. 274 1963 £ 10,000 3,080 4,310 17,390 1,200 948 252 639 81 720 £18,362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Revenue Reserves— General Reserve “Official List’? Suspense Account (per separate account) Income and Expenditure Account (per separate account) Special Donation unappropriated— As at 31st December, 1963 . Deduct Expenses during year to date of delegates to the International Congress on Zoology in Washington Current Liabilities— Sundry Creditors Subscriptions to Publications received in advance “2 Ss. 10,000 0 3,210 19 3,438 13 PiVas oP) INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR Incorporated under the Companies Balance Sheet— 4... © 2 0 1 1 16,649 12 2 3 - 2224 4 9 1,251 0 1 £18,152 14 6 REPORT OF We have obtained the information and explanations which we considered necessary, and in our opinion (1) The above balance sheet and annexed income and expenditure account give a true and fair view of the ended on that date. (2) Proper books have been kept and the accounts are in agreement therewith and give, in the prescribed Finsspury Circus House, 27th May, 1965 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Act, 1929 (Limited by Guarantee) 31st December, 1964 1963 £ £ > aa are b &. 4s. d Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— 877 Book value at Ist July, 1948 and additions since at cost 877 10 6 498 Less Depreciation and amount written off , 536 10 6 379 341 0 O Investments at cost— 2,078 £2,500 24% Savings Bonds 1964/67 Ke As 2,078 10 6 2,249 £2,500 3% Savings Bonds 1955/65. . 2,248 16 9 _- £6,857 2 11 British Transport oe Stock 1968/73. 5,689 6 8 (£4,788) (Market Value at date £10,199). 4,327 10,016 13 11 County Borough of Preston Temporary Loan 3 00 7327 13,016 13 11 Current Assets— ie Amounts due for Publications at £ s. d. 1,000 valuation .. ep -- 300 0 0 38 Income Tax Recoverable oe Bye 7712 8 1,038 —E 377 12 8 9,618 Balances at Bank and Cash in Hand or oe 4,417 7 11 10,656 ———— 4,795 0 7 (NotE—The Stock of Publications has not been valued) FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN | Members of the Committee N. D. RILEY of Management £18,362 £18,152 14 6 THE AUDITORS state of the Trust’s affairs at 31st December, 1964 and of the excess of expenditure over income for the year manner, the information required by the Companies Act, 1948, W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants. 276 1963 £ £ 3,256 665 53 3,974 50 3,924 43 20 2,526 2,546 6,513 364 6,877 4,310 £4,310 1963 £ 50 3,080 £3,130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature EXPENDITURE Administration Expenses— Salaries and National Insurance Office Expenses oe Audit Fee * Less Proportion allocated to ‘Official List” Depreciation of Office Equipment ; Printing and Distribution of Publications— International Code . Bulletin of Zoological ‘Nomenclature Balance, being Excess of Income over akan: for the year, carried down Balance brought down Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet . Proportion of Administration Expenses Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet Income and Expenditure Account for Seay Sead: £ siudt 3,667 16 7 757 4 7 5210 0 4,477 11 2 50 0 0 879 18 8 2,405 18 1 ———— _ 3,285 16 9 7,751 7 Ii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature aii the year ended 31st December, 1964 1963 INCOME ic b fr gens cr Bd. Sales of Publications— 862 International Code .. ; a aE aS 916 6 9 37 Opinions and Declarations . i ne me 8277-20 5,261 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a 5,083 11 3 7 Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature .. —-- 6,167 ———— 6,082 5 0 14 Donations F are ac ae 13 17 11 332 Interest Received on Investments (gross) sis LA a 435 7 1 185 Interest on Bank Deposit hs ie a5 Sis AP 168 18 4 Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O. et International Union os 179 Biological Sciences .. 179 6 2 £6,877 £6,879 14 6 Balance, being Excess of Pee over Income for the — year, carried down .. ‘ oS pi oe 87135 £6,877 Sito Jett 3,946 Balance brought forward from 1963 AP Lge Ns be 4,310 6 6 364 Balance brought down a a te ate ar —-- £4,310 £4,310 6 6 Suspense Account 31st December, 1964 1963 = pat Pate fi 2,980 Balance brought forward from 1963 .. te Ae are 3,079 15 1 150 Sales of Publications .. *, a Pe es ate 181 4:50 £3,130 £3,260 19 1 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING ZORILLA GEOFFROY 1826 (MAMMALIA). Z.N.(S.) 758 (see volume 19, pages 284-289; volume 20, pages 242-245; volume 22, pages 17-18) By Richard G. Van Gelder (Department of Mammalogy, The American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y.) 1. Contrary to the proposals and comments so far published, the author and date of the name of the type-species of Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, is not Gmelin 1788, but Schreber 1776. 2. Schreber, 1776, “‘ Die Séugthiere ...”, pl. 123 (and, 1777, text p. 445) based the new name Viverra zorilla on pl. 41 of Buffon (1765, Histoire naturelle, vol. 13, vernacular name only “le Zorille”’), on Pennant (1771, Synopsis of Quadrupeds, p. 233, vernacular name only “ Zorilla ’’) and on Gumilla ( 1745, El Orinoko Illustrado, p. 240, vernacular name, pre-Linnaean). The specimen figured by Buffon is a speci- men of the taxon now known as Spilogale putorius (Linnaeus, 1758) which was obtained by Mr. Aubry in America (Lichtenstein, 1836, Uber die Gattung Mephitis, p. 296). The vernacular names employed by Pennant and Gumilla cannot be referred to Spilogale and are possibly referable to Conepatus sp. (Van Gelder, 1959, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 117, p. 248). 3. Since Viverra zorilla Schreber is the nominate type-species of Zorilla Geoffroy, 1826, by indication, the name should certainly be fixed in its application to one of these species upon which it is based and we hereby designate the animal from America, obtained by Mr. Aubry, the whole individual figured by Buffon (1771, tom. cit., pl. 41) {and republished by Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1963, J. Mammal., p. 115, pl. 1)] as the lectotype of Viverra zorilla Schreber 1776. 4. The whereabouts of this specimen is unknown and Lichtenstein (1836, fom. cit., p. 296) mentions that it is no longer extant. However, since there are several sub- specific names of the spotted skunk Spilogale putorius (Linn., 1758) endangered by the name V. zorilla so long as its locality only remains ‘“‘ America ’’, it is desirable that a neotype with precise locality be recognized. Since of these subspecies names only putorius Linnaeus antedates zorilla Schreber, the neotype must come from the range of that subspecies if it is to avoid the introduction of name changing into an otherwise stable nomenclature. The neotype proposed by China (1965, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 22 (1), p. 18) is from the range of the subspecies gracilis Merriam, 1890, and would involve its replacement. 5. Accordingly, we request the Commission to disregard Dr. China’s application and direct that the specific name Viverra zorilla Schreber, 1776, be interpreted by reference to the neotype specimen American Museum of Natural History No. 5423/ 4286, skin and skull, 3, collected at Greensboro, Hale County, Alabama, by W. C. Avery on 29 February 1892. The skin of this specimen agrees well with Buffon’s plate and the locality falls within the range accorded to the subspecies putorius Linnaeus. 6. Ifthe Commission takes this action, the Viverra zorilla Schreber, 1776, becomes a subjective junior synonym of Viverra putorius Linnaeus, 1758 (and of the subspecies putorius). It is also a senior subjective synonym of Spilogale ringens Merriam, 1890, of which name the type locality is also Greensboro, Hale County, Alabama. 7. The name Zorilla was used first as a name in the genus group by I. Geoffroy St. Hillaire in an article “‘ Marte ’ in Dict. Class. Hist. Nat., 1826, vol. 13, p. 215. In this he was merely applying a formal Latinized name to a “ group name ”’ which had been used previously in a similar dictionary by Desmarest (Nov. Dic. Hist. Nat. 1818, vol. 19, p. 379, article ‘‘ Marte’). Both Geoffroy and Desmarest make it abundantly clear that this new generic name is based upon fresh material from the Cape of Good Hope, from Senegal, and from Gambia. In fact, Desmarest expressly rejects the idea that the species Viverra zorilla Schreber is from the American continents (see Anderson and de Winton, 1902, Zoology of Egypt: Mammalia, p. 238, for an historical mention of this error). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279 8. Since the generic name Zorilla Geoffroy, 1826, is thus based upon a mis- identified type-species, the matter is referred to the Commission to be dealt with in accordance with Article 70 (a). 9. The generic name Zorilla has never been used for a genus of American skunks so that neither stability nor universality of nomenclature can be served by the Com- mission adopting the alternative action 70 (a) (iii) and thus declaring V. zorilla Schreber, 1776, to be the type-species of Zorilla Geoffroy, 1826. 10. The identity of the species V. zorilla Schreber is not in doubt, so that alter- native action 70 (a) (iii) is not applicable. Hayman (in China, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 22 (1), p. 18) has shown that both Zorilla and Ictonyx are in current use for South African spotted polecats (commonly called “ zorilles ” in the vernacular) but that Ictonyx appears more often. The list of recent usages of Zorilla and Ictonyx can both be added to with ease, but it is relevant that the attention of the Commission should be drawn to the fact that even if only the list of usages of Ictonyx presented by Hayman be examined, all but Hollister 1919, Monard 1935, Schouteden 1944, Shortridge 1934, and Setzer 1956 make mention of the fact that the supposedly unavailable Zorilla belongs here; and of these five authors, Setzer later makes such a statement (The Mustelids of Egypt, J. Egyptian Public Health Assn., 1958, p. 201). Thus, Zorilla must be regarded as a name used familiarly in connexion with this taxon and no ambiguity arises through its use. Accordingly, I believe that stability will not be upset by the Commission adopting alternative 70 (a) (i) [which is also effectively the procedure which could be adopted under 70 (b) which some might regard as applicable to this case] and I am of the opinion that universality will be best served by it since the Commission is not being requested to take arbitrary action. 12. Thus, I request the Commission, through its plenary powers, and in accord- ance with Article 70 (a) (i), to designate the type-species of Zorilla Geoffroy, 1826, to be Bradypus striatus Perry, 1810 (Ictonyx striatus). 13. In summary, this new application in respect of the names Jctonyx Kaup, 1835, and Zorilla Geoffroy, 1826, requests that the Commission should: (a) direct that the name Viverra zorilla Schreber, 1776, be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as interpreted by reference to the neotype, American Museum of Natural History No. 5423/4286, type locality Greensboro, Hale County, Alabama. (b) through use of its plenary powers and in accordance with Article 70 (a) (i) designate Bradypus striatus Perry, 1810, to be the type-species of Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826. (c) direct that the name Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, type-species Bradypus striatus Perry, 1810, by subsequent designation (above) be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON DR. VAN GELDER’S PROPOSAL By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) In view of Dr. Van Gelder’s demonstration that my request for a designation of a neotype of Viverra zorilla Gmelin under the plenary powers would result in the name of the Colorado subspecies Spilogale putorius (L.) gracilis Merriam being changed to Spilogale putorius (L.) zorilla Schreber, I herewith retract my request. (See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 18, para. 6.) I agree with him that the oldest valid name for Viverra zorilla Gmelin, 1788, is Viverra zorilla Schreber, 1776, referred to by Erxleben, 1777. I am sorry to see that Van Gelder supports the change of name of the South African Stinkmuishond from the well-used Ictonyx Kaup to the hopelessly confused Zorilla I. Geoffroy and would prefer the suppression of the latter name under the plenary Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature powers as requested in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 289. I believe that the proper course now would be to submit two alternatives to the Commission for voting on one or the other as follows: (1) The placing of Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, on the Official List of Generic Names with type-species Bradypus striatus Perry, 1810, whereby Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, sinks as a junior synonym of Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826. (2) The suppression of Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, under the plenary powers and the placing of Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, on the Official List of Generic Names with type-species Bradypus striatus Perry, 1810; and the placing of Zorilla on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names. Viverra zorilla Schreber, 1776, would, of course, be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names as a junior objective synonym of Spilogale putorius putorius (L.). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF TIPULA NUBECULOSA MEIGEN, 1804 (INSECTA, DIPTERA) AS A MISIDENTIFIED SPECIFIC NAME. Z.N.(S.) 895 (see volume 22, pages 53-54) By Bo Tjeder (Entomological Institute of Lund University, Lund, Sweden) Mannheims reports in 1953 (in Lindner: Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region 173 : 123-126) the results of an examination of type specimens of Tipula nubeculosa Meigen, 1804 (Klass. Beschr. Zweifi. Ins. p. 70), preserved in the Paris Museum. He found that the type material represents the species described by Schummel in 1833 as Tipula rubripes (Beitr. Ent. 3 : 49-51). Mannheims considers further that the species dealt with by Schummel in the same paper as T. nubeculosa represents the species Tipula hortorum Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10 : 585). He establishes the following synonymy: Species (A) Tipula hortorum Linnaeus, 1758 (syn.: T. nubeculosa Schummel, 1833, nec Meigen, 1804) Species (B) Tipula nubeculosa Meigen, 1804 (syn. T. rubripes Schummel, 1833). Mannheims regrets that by evidence of the types he has been forced to change the names of the two species in this way. Until 1953 they were usually dealt with as (A) T. nubeculosa Meigen, and (B) T. rubripes Schummel. The change of the name of the species (A) to hortorum Linnaeus was accepted by Drs. A. M. Hemmingsen and Henning Lemche, but in an application to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (published in this Bulletin 22, 1 : 53-54) they propose the suppression of Tipula nubeculosa Meigen, 1804, as a mis- identified specific name. Approval of their proposition would mean that the name nubeculosa disappears, in spite of our present knowledge of the identity of the species (by evidence of the types). The case was thoroughly investigated by Mannheims, and the names are applied in accordance with the Rules, in a work which will be the standard for along time. There- fore I disagree with the proposition presented by Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche. Instead I herewith ask the Commission to place the following species on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) hortorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Tipula hortorum, sensu Mannheims 1953. (b) nubeculosa Meigen, 1804, as published in the binomen Tipula nubeculosa, sensu Mannheims 1953. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED REJECTION OF LEPUS DOUGLASII GRAY, 1837, AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1696 (see volume 22, pages 190-191) By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) I read Mr. Long’s application with interest, but actually there is no need (yet) for an action by the Commission here. Of the two competing names Lepus douglasii Gray, 1837, Mag. nat. Hist. (n. ser.) 1 : 586 and Lepus aquaticus Bachman, 1837, Journ. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 7 (2) : 194 according to the Rules the latter has priority so that there is no need for suppressing the former. Gray’s paper was read in November, 1837, its actual date of publication is unknown, so that this has to be accepted as being 31 December, 1837, or if one takes the indication November on the fascicle as the date of publication, then it is 30 November, 1837. According to p. viii of ‘‘ An Index to the scientific contents of the journal and Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1812-1912 ” pub- lished by the Academy in 1912, the second part of vol. 7 of the Journal of the Academy was presented to the Academy meeting of 21 November, 1837, and thus was published before that date. The date of publication of Lepus aquaticus for purposes of nomen- clature is thus 21 November, 1837, and the name therefore has priority over L. douglasii. In view of the fact that dates of publication of the two names are so close, and that new evidence may be forthcoming showing L. douglasii to be published earlier than L. aquaticus, 1 will not object to the suppression of the former name. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 755 CALEPHELIS GROTE & ROBINSON, 1869 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Calephelis Grote & Robinson, 1869, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Erycina virginiensis Guérin-Meéneville, [1831], is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Calephelis Grote & Robinson, 1869 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Erycina virginiensis Guérin-Méneville, [1831], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1694. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) virginiensis Guérin-Méneville, [1831], as published in the binomen Erycina virginiensis (type-species of Calephelis Grote & Robinson, 1869) (Name No. 2104); (b) cereus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Papilio cereus (Name No. 2105). (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) caenius Grote & Robinson, 1869, as published in the binomen Charis caenius (an incorrect spelling for cereus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1767) (Name No. 837); (b) caeneus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Papilio caeneus (an incorrect original spelling for cereus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1767) (Name No. 838); (c) cenea Seitz, (1917), as published in the binomen Charis cenea (an incorrect spelling for cereus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1767) (Name No. 839). (5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Nymphidia Boisduval & LeConte, 1833 (an incorrect spelling for Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807) (Name No. 1772); (b) Nymphidium Boisduval & LeConte, 1833 (a junior homonym of Nymphidium Fabricius 1807) (Name No. 1773); (c) Lephelisca Barnes & Lindsey, 1922 (a junior objective synonym of Calephelis Grote & Robinson, 1869) (Name No. 1774). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1563) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos in August 1962. Mr. dos Passos’ application was sent to the printer on 4 October 1962 and was published on 12 July 1963 in Bull. zool. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. PiMae espa Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 283 Nomencl. 20 : 313-320. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b: Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184). The application was supported by the late Mr. Francis Hemming, Dr. W. S. McAlpine, Dr. H. K. Clench, Prof. Paul R. Ehrlich, Dr. M. C. Nielsen, Dr. H. A. Freeman and Dr. A. E. Brower. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 3 June 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)16 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 319. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 September 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: Holthuis, Mayr, Bonnet, China, Vokes, Binder, Riley, Simpson, Munroe, Sabrosky, Miller, Alvarado, do Amaral, Lemche, Uchida, Tortonese, Brinck, Obruchey, Forest, Boschma, Ride, Kraus, Mertens, Jaczewski. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—one (1) : Evans. Commissioners Stoll and Hubbs returned late affirmative votes. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: caeneus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 796 caenius, Charis, Grote & Robinson, 1869, Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 2 : 310-311 Calephelis Grote & Robinson, 1869, Trans. Amer. ent. Soc., 2 : 310-311 cenea, Charis, Seitz, (1917), The Macrolepidoptera of the World, Amer. Rophalo- cera 5 : 698 cereus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : errata Lephelisca Barnes & Lindsey, 1922, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 15 - 93 Nymphidia Boisduval & LeConte, 1833, Hist. gén. Icon. Lépid. Chen. Amér. sept. (14): 131 Nymphidium Boisduval & LeConte, 1833, Hist, gén. Icon. Lépid. Chen. Amer. sept. (14): 131 virginiensis, Erycina, Guérin-Méneville, [1831], Icon. Régne Anim., Ins.: 489 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)16 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 755. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 29 September 1965 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 756 LEPTOPHIS VERTEBRALIS DUMERIL, BIBRON & DUMERIL, 1854 (REPTILIA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name vertebralis Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, as published in the binomen Leptophis vertebralis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name barbouri Taylor, 1922, as published in the binomen Natrix barbouri is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2106. (3) The specific name vertebralis Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, as published in the binomen Leptophis vertebralis (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 840. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1559) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor Hobart M. Smith in July 1962. Professor Smith’s application was sent to the printer on 4 October 1962 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 361-362. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other pres- cribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two herpetological serials. The application was supported by Dr. Carl L. Hubbs. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 3 June 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)17 either for or against the pro- posals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 362. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 September 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: Mayr, Bonnet, China, Vokes, Binder, Riley, Simpson, Munroe, Miller, Alvarado, do Amaral, Lemche, Uchida, Tortonese, Obruchev, Forest, Boschma, Ride, Kraus, Mertens, Jaczewski. Negative votes—three (3): Holthuis, Sabrosky, Brinck. Voting Papers not returned—one (1) : Evans. Commissioners Stoll and Hubbs returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (11.vi.65): “‘ Since the type of L. vertebralis is present and the identity of the species beyond all doubt, I do not see why this, the oldest name, should not be used, especially so since the specific name barbouri has been used only a few times.” Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (19.vii.65): “ This case does not merit suspension of the Rules. The name to be saved is neither widely nor frequently used (at most Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285 a dozen times in forty years), nor is it of great importance. I see no reason for honoring or excusing Boulenger’s oversight or Taylor’s (1922) failure to find and study the type. If Taylor concluded that it was ‘ probably a species of Natrix’, it behoved him to find out before describing new Philippine species of Natrix!” Dr. Per Brinck (11.viii.65): “I disagree! Natrix barbouri was described only in 1922 and as far as I can see there will be no confusion or trouble by taking over the old name (L. vertebralis of 1854) for the species. Under similar conditions this is quite a usual procedure, particularly in entomology.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: barbouri, Natrix, Taylor, 1922, Philippine J. Sci. 21 : 291-293. vertebralis, Leptophis, Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, in Roret’s Suites a Buffon, Erpét. Gén. 7 : 543-544 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)17 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 756. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 September 1965 286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 757 CONUS CANDIDUS BORN, 1778 (GASTROPODA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name candidus Born, 1778, as published in the binomen Conus candidus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name candidus Born, 1778, as published in the binomen Conus candidus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 841. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1567) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Alan J. Kohn in August 1962. Dr. Kohn’s application was sent to the printer on 4 October 1962 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 370-371. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two malacological serials. The application was supported by Dr. Carl L. Hubbs. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 3 June 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)19 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 371. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 September 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Holthuis, Mayr, Bonnet, China, Vokes, Binder, Riley, Simpson, Munroe, Miller, Alvarado, do Amaral, Jaczewski, Lemche, Uchida, Tortonese, Brinck, Obruchev, Forest, Boschma, Kraus, Mertens, Ride. Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky. Voting Papers not returned—two (2) : Evans, Hubbs. Commissioner Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. In returning a negative vote Commissioner Sabrosky made the following comment: “ As always, I am opposed to the bookwork of suppressing nomina dubia. Let zoologists take care of their own.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: candidus, Conus, Born, 1778, Index Mus. Caes. Vindobonensis (1): 130 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)19 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287 under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 757. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 September 1965 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 758 DIPLECTRONA WESTWOOD, 1839 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA): VALIDATION AND DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the generic name Aphelocheira Stephens, 1836, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Diplectrona Westwood, 1839, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Diplectrona felix MacLachlan, 1878, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Diplectrona Westwood, 1839 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Diplec- trona felix MacLachlan, 1878, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1695. (3) The specific name felix MacLachlan, 1878, as published in the binomen Diplectrona felix (type-species of Diplectrona Westwood, 1839) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2107. (4) The generic name Aphelocheira Stephens, 1836 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1775. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1580) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. F. C. J. Fischer in October 1962. Dr. Fischer’s application was sent to the printer on 31 November 1962 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 373. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. The application was supported by Mr. D. E. Kimmins, Dr. Glen B. Wiggins and Dr. K. M. F. Scott. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 3 June 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)21 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 373. The following note of clarification was added to the Voting Paper: ““ A comment by Dr. Hubbs has shown that the situation regarding the species flavomaculata is not set out sufficiently clearly in the application. Hydropsyche flavomaculata was described by Pictet in 1834. Stephens in 1836 included in his new genus Aphelocheira a species ‘ flavomaculata Pictet’ indicating with a questionmark his doubt as to the identification of this species with that described by Pictet. But flavomaculata Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289 Pictet (which is a good species and in present use) is not the same species as * flavomaculata?’ of Stephens. Stephens species was therefore given the name felix by MacLachlan.” At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 September 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Holthuis, Mayr, Bonnet, China, Vokes, Binder, Riley, Simpson, Jaczewski, Munroe, Sabrosky, Miller, Alvarado, Lemche, Uchida, Tortonese, Brinck, Obruchev, Forest, Boschma, Ride, Kraus, Mertens. Negative votes—one (1): do Amaral. Voting Papers not returned—two (2) : Evans, Hubbs. Commissioner Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (11.vi.65): “‘ As H. flavomaculata was doubtfully assigned by Stephens to Aphelocheira it cannot be the type of that genus, consequently A. subaurata is the type by monotypy both of Aphelocheira and Diplectrona. Notwithstanding this the request made by Mr. Fischer is para. 6 of his applica- tion will lead to the desired result.” Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (19.vii.65): ““ The comment [see above] reveals that ‘ flavomaculata Pictet’ was a doubtfully identified species, and it is therefore ineligible as type-species of Aphelocheira (Code, Art. 67h). Stephens’ genus was therefore monobasic for subaurata (Stephens), and Aphelocheira is thus in reality the senior synonym of Wormaldia. Perhaps the application should be recast? ” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Aphelocheira Stephens, 1836, Jil. Brit. Ent., Mand. 6 : 179 Diplectrona Westwood, 1839, Introd. mod. Classif. Ins., Gen. Syn. : 49 felix, Diplectrona, MacLachlan, 1878, Rev. Syn. Trich. : 376 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)21 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 758. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 September 1965 290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 759 SCELOPORUS TORQUATUS WIEGMANN, 1828 (REPTILIA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the name torquatus Wiegmann, 1828, as published in the binomen Sceloporus torquatus, is not to be considered a permanently rejected name within the provisions of Art. 59b of the Code. (2) The specific name torguatus, Wiegmann, 1828, as published in the bino- men Sceloporus torquatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2108. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1582) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor Hobart M. Smith in November 1962. Professor Smith’s application was sent to the printer on 31 January 1963 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 374-375. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two herpetological serials. The application was supported by Dr. Carl L. Hubbs. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 3 June 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)22 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 374-375. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 September 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Mayr, Bonnet, China, Vokes, Binder, Simpson, Munroe, Sabrosky, Miller, Alvarado, do Amaral, Lemche, Uchida, Tortonese, Brinck, Obruchev, Forest, Boschma, Ride, Kraus, Mertens, Jaczewski. Negative votes—two (2): Holthuis, Riley. Voting Papers not returned—one (1) : Evans. Commissioners Stoll and Hubbs returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (11.vi.65): “* Since the two names have been used for this species, each rather uniformly during a certain period, I believe it to be in the interest of stability to stick to the nomenclaturally correct name. If we validate torquatus now and later authors place Stellio torquatus Wied, 1820 and Sceloporus torquatus Wiegmann, 1828, again in one genus the name forquatus Wiegmann would have to disappear for a third time. “* The granting of Dr. Smith’s request under (a) to set aside Smith’s 1936, rejection of Sceloporus torquatus Wiegmann, 1828, will not help this question either, since all subsequent authors who followed Smith in accepting the name ferrariperizi did so by rejecting torquatus, if Smith’s action is set aside, that of Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291 all subsequent authors up to and inclusive of those publishing in 1960 should be set aside also. “ All this is so complicated that I believe it far more simple to adhere here strictly to the Rules.” Dr. A. H. Miller (22.vii.65): “ Smith never should have set aside Sceloporus torquatus in the first place.” Dr. W. D. L. Ride (31.viii.65): “ In recording this vote for the proposal, I approve its aim but I would ask that consideration should be given to the form of words in which the decision of the Commission will be framed as it applies to proposal (a). “In my opinion the Commission should have been asked to set aside Article 59b as it applies to this case—not to set aside an action by Smith. To do the latter presupposes complete knowledge that no other author has taken the same action. Such other cases would not be covered by the application as it stands. I suggest that the decision of the Commission should be framed as though the proposal had requested the Commission: (a) to give an Opinion through the use of the plenary powers (Art. 78b (ii)) that the name Sceloporus torquatus Wiegmann, 1828, is not a permanently rejected name within the provisions of Article 59b (Secondary homonymy with Stellio torquatus Wied, 1820, as Tropidurus).” The suggested wording of Dr. Ride has been adopted in the Ruling of the present Opinion. ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: torquatus, Sceloporus Wiegmann, 1828, Isis (Oken) 1828 : 369 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)22 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 759. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 October 1965 292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 760 MACROPUS SHAW, 1790 (MAMMALIA): ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST TOGETHER WITH THE VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF MACROPUS GIGANTEUS SHAW, 1790 RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name canguru Statius Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Mus canguru, together with all usages of canguru (and its various spellings kangaru, kanguro, kanguru, caenguru, cangaru, cangura) in combination with Mus, Yerboa, Jaculus, Zerbua, Didelphis, Didelphys and Macropus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) the specific name giganteus Erxleben, 1777, as published in the binomen Jaculus giganteus, and all usages of giganteus in combination with Yerboa, Jaculus, Didelphis and Didelphys prior to that by Shaw in 1790, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (c) it is hereby Ruled that Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790, and Macropus major Shaw, are not to be considered objective synonyms and may have separate type-specimens and type-localities. (2) The generic name Macropus Shaw, 1790 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790, as interpreted by the neotype designated by Calaby & Ride, 1964, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1696. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) giganteus Shaw, 1790, as published in the binomen Macropus giganteus, as interpreted by the neotype designated by Calaby & Ride, 1964 (type-species of Macropus Shaw, 1790) (Name No. 2109); (b) major Shaw, 1800, as published in the binomen Macropus major (Name No. 2110). (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) canguru Statius Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Mus canguru (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) (Name No. 842); (b) canguru, all uses of (and its various spellings kangaru, kanguro, kanguru, caenguru, cangaru, cangura) in combination with Mus, Yerboa, Jaculus, Zerbua, Didelphis, Didelphys and Macropus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 843); (c) giganteus Erxleben, 1777, as published in the binomen Jaculus giganteus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) (Name No. 844); Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293 (d) giganteus, all uses of in combination with Yerboa, Jaculus, Didelphis and Didelphys prior to that in Macropus by Shaw in 1790 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1584) The present case was submitted by Dr. J. H. Calaby, the late Mr. G. Mack and Dr. W. D. L. Ride in January 1962. A revised application was sent to the printer on 4 October 1962 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 376-379. This application was supported by Dr. N. A. Wake- field and Dr. Carl L. Hubbs. The further history of the case is given in the following Secretary’s Note which was circulated with the Voting Paper on this case. “A comment from Dr. J. T. Woods and Dr. T. H. Kirkpatrick containing new proposals was printed in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 249-250. “ As a result of comments by Kirkpatrick and Woods, and objections raised by Prof. Ernst Mayr and Dr. H. Lemche (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 250), Calaby and Ride submitted new proposals involving the use of the plenary powers. The replacement proposal was printed in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 250-255 and was supported by Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott and Dr. H. H. Findlayson (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 329) and Dr. J. T. Woods (in litt.). “ A further proposal, with a new neotype designation for Mus canguru was received from Dr. E. LeG. Troughton and Dr. D. F. McMichael and was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 255-259. Further comment from Troughton and McMichael was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 329-331. “The following comment was received on 11 February 1965 from Dr. G. G. Simpson: * On Z.N.(S.) 1584, the comment by Troughton and McMichael in B.Z.N.21: 329-331. This opposition to the proposal seems to me partly inadequate and partly irrelevant. Troughton and McMichael submit that the identity of Mus canguru Miiller is quite certain, but that is not the case because several other competent zoologists do not consider it certain. Troughton and McMichael also speak for retention of the name canguru because of its historical interest, but historical interest has nothing to do with the purposes of the Code or the powers of this Commission. Nothing adduced by Troughton and McMichael has clear bearing on the essential point: stabilization of the universally used name Macropus and of specific nomenclature in that group. It seems clear that those purposes will be best served by approving the revised application by Ride and Calaby. That also has the merit, as Dr. Morrison- Scott has put it, of separating the nomenclatural problem from the purely taxonomic and historical problem of identification now raised anew by Troughton and McMichael.’ “ The present case has become extremely complicated, and the Secretary is of the opinion that rejection of the use of the plenary powers as proposed by Calaby and Ride will not necessarily imply the acceptance of the proposal of Troughton and McMichael. The latter proposal would seem to need the use of the plenary powers to set aside the neotype designation for Mus canguru made by Calaby, Mack and Ride in 1962. Such use of the plenary powers, however, has not been requested. The accompanying V.P. (65)23 has there- 294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature fore been set out in a manner enabling Commissioners to vote for either of the proposals put forward or against both the proposals. Proposal A is that of Calaby and Ride, Proposal B is that of Troughton and McMichael. Proposal C deals with the validation under the plenary powers of Macropus major for a subspecies of the Grey Kangaroo—a matter which Ride and Calaby requested be kept separate from the main issue. Commissioners are requested to cast a vote either for or against each of the proposals contained in the accompanying Voting Paper.” Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 242 (the part of the Bulletin containing the revised proposals of Calaby and Ride) as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two specialist serials. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 3 June 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)23 either for or against the following proposals: Proposal A (the use of the plenary powers to validate the name Macropus giganteus for the Grey Kangaroo, as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 254, para. 8); Proposal B (to apply the name Mus canguru to the Whiptail Wallaby, as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 258); Proposal C (the use of the plenary powers to validate the use of the name Macropus major for a taxon differing from Macropus giganteus, as set out in Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 21 : 254— 255, para. 10). At the close of the prescribed voting period on 6 September 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes for Proposal A—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Mayr, Bonnet, China, Vokes, Binder, Simpson, Munroe, Sabrosky, Miller, Alvarado, do Amaral, Riley, Lemche, Tortonese, Uchida, Obruchev, Forest, Boschma, Ride, Kraus, Mertens, Jaczewski. Negative votes—one (1): Holthuis. Affirmative votes for Proposal B—none (0). Negative votes—twenty-three (23): Holthuis, Mayr, Bonnet, China, Vokes, Binder, Simpson, Munroe, Sabrosky, Miller, Alvarado, do Amaral, Riley, Lemche, Tortonese, Uchida, Obruchev, Forest, Boschma, Ride, Kraus, Mertens, Jaczewski. Affirmative votes for Proposal C—eighteen (18): Mayr, Bonnet, China, Vokes, Binder, Munroe, Sabrosky, Miller, Alvarado, do Amaral, Lemche, Tortonese, Uchida, Obruchev, Forest, Boschma, Ride, Jaczewski. Negative votes—five (5): Holthuis, Simpson, Riley, Kraus, Mertens. Voting Papers not returned—one (1) : Evans. Commissioners Stoll, Hubbs and Brinck returned late affirmative votes in Parts A and C, and negative votes in Part B of the Voting Paper. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: canguru, Mus, Statius Miiller, 1776, Des Ritters C. von Linné. . . Supplements- band: 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295 giganteus, Jaculus, Erxleben, 1777, Syst. Régn. Anim.: 409 giganteus, Macropus, Shaw, 1790, Nat. Miscell.: pl. 33 and text Macropus Shaw, 1790, Nat. Miscell.: pl. 33 and text major, Macropus, Shaw, 1800, Gen. Zool. 1 : 505 The following is the original reference for a neotype designation for a nominal species concerned in the present Ruling: For Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790: Calaby & Ride, 1964, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 254 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)23 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that Voting Paper as Proposal A and Proposal C have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 760. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 October 1965. 296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF SYNAPTIPHILUS CANU & CUENOT, 1892. Z.N.(S.) 1664 (see present volume pages 58-59) By R. U. Gooding (Department of Zoology, University of Singapore, Singapore, 10.) I wish to support the proposal by Drs. Laubier and Stock that the generic name Synaptiphilus be conserved and its senior synonym Colaceutes abandoned. Although the former name may seem to have been used only a few times in the literature, it was sufficiently firmly established by the original papers of Canu (Canu & Cuénot, in Cuénot, 1892; Canu, 1894) and confirmed by the recent revision of Bocquet & Stock (1957b)—all of which are in one of the present international languages of zoology (French) and published in well- known journals—that there has been until now no question of its validity. A measure of this is the readiness with which the one junior synonym, Remigulus T. & A. Scott, 1893 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 12 : 242), was accepted as such by its authors (1897). Some of the papers Laubier & Stock cite are also general faunistic surveys or deal mainly with the echinoderm host-group. Finally, Synaptiphilus is the nominal type-genus of the family Synaptiphilidae Bocquet, 1952. Although this is not currently recognised as valid, the systematics of the group to which it belongs is by no means settled. The type-species of Synaptiphilus, S. luteus Canu & Cuénot in Cuénot, 1892, is also well-known now. However, I think the value of Laubier & Stock’s proposal would be enhanced by the addition of one designating a neotype for S. luteus. (The remainder of the paragraph should be construed not as such a proposal but simply as the basis for this statement.) The species was originally stated (Canu & Cuénot in Cuénot, 1892 : 19) to be “‘ commensal sur les tégu- ments de Synapta inhaerens Miill, (Roscoff), des Syn. inhaerens et digitata Mont. (Arcachon).” No type host, type locality nor holotype was designated. Later, Cuénot (1912 : 62-74) concluded that previous records of Synapta inhaerens from Roscoff and Arcachon should be attributed to Leptosynapta galliennei (Herapath). Bocquet & Stock (1957b) have separated three species of Synaptiphilus: luteus, tridens (T. & A. Scott, 1893) and cantacuzenei Bocquet & Stock, 1957b; they suggested that all records of S. /uteus from Labidoplax (= Synapta) digitata probably refer to S. cantacuzenei. Thus, S. luteus appears to be limited to L. galliennei and is at present known only from Roscoff and Arcachon (on the Channel and Atlantic coasts of France respectively). The original specimens are almost certainly no longer in existence: they are definitely not in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (letter from Prof. M. Vachon, 11 April 1957). But specimens from Roscoff (which was mentioned first in the original publication) are available (Bocquet & Stock, 1957b); and there is no indication that this locality is in any way an abnormal one in the range of the animal. While Synaptiphilus is a well-known and well-established genus, Colaceutes, on the other hand, was defined in an obscure Latin publication, apparently with Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 297 very limited distribution, was misrepresented in the only subsequent reference (C. B. Wilson, 1932) and is probably known to very few zoologists, even special- ists. There is also the statement by Laubier & Stock that they have been unable to identify the type-species, C. muelleri, with any of the three forms of Synaptiphilus known from the same host, or with any other. However, this need not imply that it is unlikely C. muelleri will be found again: all the three forms of Synaptiphilus they mention have themselves only been brought to light within the last few years (1957 on) and none is known from as far east as the type locality for C. muelleri (near Trieste, in the Bay of Muggia). It may also be noted that the location “Britain”, given for S. cantacuzenei in Laubier & Stock’s proposal, is a misprint for Brittany, France. Attempts which I have made to locate the type-series of specimens of C. muelleri have been unsuccessful. Since it is quite clear that the two generic names designate the same taxon, in my opinion, this is a case where stability can best be maintained by exercise of the plenary powers to validate Synaptiphilus rather than by retaining its senior synonym. 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SUPPLEMENT TO PROPOSED VALIDATION OF ACARUS TELARIUS, TROMBIDIUM TILIARIUM AND TETRANYCHUS URTICAE. Z.N.(S.) 1564. By H. Bruce Boudreaux and Gudo Dosse (Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A., and Institut fur Pflanzenschutz, Stuttgart/Hohenheim, Germany, respectively.) 1. In our proposal of 1963 (Boudreaux and Dosse, 1963, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 365-366, 21 Oct., we had not mentioned the designation of a neotype for Acarus telarius Linné, 1758, made by van Eyndhoven (1962, Ento- mologische Berichten, 22 : 182). There are then two specimens designated as neotype: The one of van Eyndhoven (op. cit.), which is represented by a specimen of the Linden Mite, also known as Eotetranychus tiliarius (Joh. Herman, 1804), and the one of Boudreaux and Dosse (op. cit.), which is represented by a speci- men of the Carmine Mite, also known as Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval, 1867). 2. Since these two neotypes each represent a different species, it is necessary that one be validated and the other suppressed by the Commission under its plenary powers in the consideration of our proposal in apposition to van Eyndhoven’s counterproposal (1964, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 86-88). The neotype selection by van Eyndhoven has priority over our action, but it should be suppressed because the species he used for the type was misidentified. Our reasons for considering this species to have been misidentified were discussed in our original proposal. 3. In the same counterproposal (1964, op. cit.) van Eyndhoven designated a lectotype from a non-existent series of “‘syntypes.”” We consider this action invalid because there is no specimen or figure in existence to permit study of this “specimen.” 4. In order to present our proposal in apposition to that of van Eyndhoven, so that voting by the commission can be facilitated, we submit the following amended proposal as a substitute for our original proposal (Z.N.(S.) 1564). The arguments we presented remain the same. (a) We ask that the Commission, under its plenary powers, declare invalid the neotype designation for Acarus telarius Linné, 1758, as published in Entomologische Berichten, 22 : 182, 1962; (b) We further ask that the following names be placed on the Official List of Approved Specific Names: (1) telarius Linné, 1758, as published in the combination Acarus telarius, as defined by the neotype designated by Boudreaux & Dosse, 1963; (2) tiliarium Joh. Hermann, 1804, as published in the combination trombidium (sic) tiliarium in a note added to the book of his son, J. F. Hermann, as defined by the neotype designated by Boudreaux & Dosse, 1963; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 299 (3) urticae Koch, 1836, as published in the combination Tetranychus urticae, as defined by the neotype designated by Boudreaux & Dosse, 1963; (c) We further ask, for the reasons given by van Eyndhoven (op. cit., 1964), and because they have not been used as senior synonyms since their publication, that the following names be placed on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names, as nomina oblita: (1) sambuci Schrank, 1781, as published in the combination Acarus sambuci; (2) textor Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the combination Acarus textor. 300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANCISTRODON NOT AGKISTRODON (REPTILIA-SERPENTES) Z.NAS.) 671 By H. W. Parker (British Museum (Natural History) London). Klauber (1956) pointed out that under the “Copenhagen Decisions” (in which it was proposed to prohibit the amendment of incorrectly transliterated names) suspension of the Rules would be required to validate the continued use of the emended spelling Ancistrodon for the generic name that Beauvois (1799) had applied to “the mokason”. With precipitate haste some herpetologists accepted that view when the new, 1961, code of nomenclature came into force, and changed to the original Agkistrodon because Article 32 does not give authority for emending “une transcription incorrecte”’. The matter is, however, not quite as simple as that, for Article 86 of the new code says that “No decision taken by the Commission in relation to a particular ° name or work, prior to the effective date of this code, is to be set aside without the consent of the Commission”. The title of my application is a verbatim extract from “‘Ratschlage’’ or Appendix F which was published with each of the successive official editions of the “International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature”’ issued between 1902 and 1958 (inclusive). So, unless it can be demon- strated that the Commission repeatedly approved such a categoric statement in relation to this “particular name” without ever having taken a decision about it, the position is exactly the reverse of that adumbrated by Klauber; the consent of the Commission will be required before Beauvois’ original, incorrectly transliterated spelling, Agkistrodon, can be used. The proponents of “no amendments of incorrect transliterations” may advance the view that ““Appendix F” was no more than a set of recommenda- tions; that “‘Ancistrodon not Agkistrodon” was merely illustrative of the correct method of transliterating a name derived from Greek words such as &yKictpov and é660b¢c. But it was also, most surely, intended for guidance in the applica- tion of Article 19 which required the original orthography of names to be preserved unless they evidently contained, amongst other things, “‘une faute de transcription”; this, the English translation of the rules notwithstanding, means an “error of transliteration”’. There can be no doubt that the flagrant error in the English version of Article 9, where the more embracing French word “transcription” is rendered by the English word spelt in the same way but having a much narrower meaning, has misled the majority of zoologists who trusted the English version without ever checking with the definitive French text. That the French meaning was intentional is clear from one of the earliest Opinions, (No. 36), published in 1911 when the Commission stated that it was “...of the opinion that the original publication of [x, y, and z] makes it evident that an error of transcription (seu transliteration) is present and that these names should be emended to read ...° (Kirby 1944). Furthermore the attention of the Commission was drawn during the Padua meeting of the International Zoological Congress in 1930 to the fact that the English translation was at fault and a resolution was passed Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301 that it should be corrected by the use of the word transliteration “‘ to accord more nearly with the French”; but this was never done and, so Dr. China informs me, the minutes of the session cannot now be found. I was present at the meeting (as a “ substitute commissioner ’’) and can vouch for the point, the words in quotes in the preceding sentence being my own contribution to the wording of the minute. It seems possible that, in the absence of any fixed time being specified for action, the Secretary’s embarrassment, arising from the fact that he had been responsible for the original English translation (Int. Congress 1902), led to procrastination that outlived him. Be that as it may, the linguistic error is tacitly admitted in the 1961 Code where, in paragraph ii of Article 32, the words “une transcription incorrecte ” are translated as “incorrect transliteration’’. But this new code reverses the original intention in the matter so that its retrospective application will, in the absence of special action by the Commission, result in rejection of the actions of those law-abiding workers who correctly interpreted the original rules, whilst the deviationists (whether by accident or intent) are whitewashed. Indiscriminate retrospective application of the new principle will add nothing to stability in nomenclature so that it lacks even the merit of expediency; and there is scant justice in it. In the case of Agkistrodon Beauvois (type species by monotypy “‘ the moka- son”) the amendment to Ancistrodon appears first to have been made by Wagler (1830, p. 176). In an age when there were no international rules of nomenclature and when a due regard for the niceties of classical usage was expected in any work with pretensions to sound scholarship, it was to be expected that the amended spelling would be preferred. And a very superficial survey shows that the following internationally known nineteenth- and early twentieth-century herpetological taxonomists used it: Agassiz, Baird, Bedriaga, Boettger, Boulenger, Cope, Gadow, Garman, Giinther, Miiller, Nikolsky, Peters, Rendahl, Taylor (W. E.), Wall and Werner. The same survey over the same period revealed only the following comparable dissentients: Girard, Jordan, Hay and Stejneger. It was the influence of the last-named that seems to have been mainly responsible for a more widespread use of the original spelling between 1900 and 1953, especially in North America, despite the fact that, from the date of the fifth International Congress of Zoology (Berlin, 1901) until 1961, the emended form was approved by the Régles. Even Stejneger (1907) admitted that the original spelling contained an error of transliteration and that the correct transliteration should have been Ancistrodon. This form has been widely used since the publication of the sixth edition of the Check List of North American Amphibians and Reptiles (Schmidt, K. P., 1953). The type-species of Ancistrodon is Cenchris mokeson Daudin, 1803 (in Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. Rept. 5 : 358, pl. LX, fig. 25, pl. LXX, figs. 3, 4), which was the first nominal species to be placed in the genus (by Wagler, 1830, Natiirl. Syst. Amph.: 176). The oldest available name for Cenchris mokeson is Boa contortrix Linnaeus, 1766 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 373). The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to validate under the plenary powers the emendation to Ancistrodon of the generic name Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799; 302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the generic name Ancistrodon Beauvois, 1799 (gender: masculine), type-species, by subsequent monotypy: Cenchris mokeson Daudin, [1803], on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name contortrix Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Boa contortrix, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799 (Ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above to be an invalid original spelling for Ancistrodon) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Beauvols, P.de, 1799. “Memoir on Amphibia’’, Trans Amer. phil. Soc. 4 : 362-381 INT. CONGRESS ZOOLOGY. 1902. ‘“‘Rules of Zoological Nomenclature”. Verh. V Int. Zool.— Congress Berlin, 1901-964 Kirsy, H. 1944, “Une faute de transcription, d’othographie ou d’impression”’, Science, 100 : 425-427 KLAuserR, L. 1956. ‘‘Agkistrodon or Ancistrodon’’, Copeia, 1956, 4 : 258-259 ScHMIDT, K. P. 1953. A Check List of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, Chicago Univ. Press STEJNEGER, L. 1907. Herpetology of Japan and adjacent territory. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 58 : 449 WaGLER, J.G. 1830. Naturliches System der Amphibien ~ 2 ely ce , Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO CONSERVE THE GENERIC NAME CALAMARIA BOIE, 1827, AND THE SPECIFIC NAME CALAMARIA LINNAEI SCHLEGEL, 1837 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES). Z.N.(S.) 1114 By L. D. Brongersma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) and Robert F. Inger and Hymen Marx (Chicago Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Ill., U.S.A.) To obtain stability in zoological nomenclature, Apstein (1915) proposed to accept a large number of generic names as nomina conservanda. Among these genera Apstein (1915, p. 191) mentions Calamaria Boie, 1826, with Coluber calamarius L., 1776, as its type. It is well known that the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature refused to adopt Apstein’s list as a whole, but that from time to time individual cases were considered. When the Com- mission intended to deal with Calamaria, due notice was given to the zoological profession (e.g., in 1924: Zool. Anz. 61 : 104), and as no objections were raised, Calamaria Boie, 1827, 236 (type by tautonymy Coluber calamarius L. 1758, 216) was placed on the Official List of Generic Names (Opinion 92, 1926, Smiths. Misc. Coll. 73 (4) : 3). Neither Apstein (and his advisors) nor the Commission were aware that the consequence of their action was just the opposite of what had been intended. Apstein and the Commission apparently overlooked a paper by Andersson (1899, Bih. Sv. Vet. Ak. Handl. 24 (iv) : 8) who re-examined the type specimen of Coluber calamarius L., and showed that it belongs to a species of the genus Oligodon, and not to the genus Calamaria as this had been understood for many years. Therefore, if Coluber calamarius L. is accepted as the type of Calamaria Boie, this generic name passes into the synonymy of Oligodon. The situation becomes more complicated by the introduction of the name Calamaria linnaei Boie. From what we know now it is clear that when identi- fying snakes from Java, H. Boie firmly believed one of the species to be identical with Coluber calamarius L. The Javan species (together with related forms) was referred by him to a new genus, which he named Calamaria. We may safely assume, that (in accordance with the customs of his time) he wanted to avoid tautonymy, and hence he introduced the name Calamaria linnaei for the species which he believed to be the same as Coluber calamarius L. Andersson’s study has shown that the Javan Calamaria linnaei does not agree with Linnaeus’s Coluber calamarius. H. Boie made an error, and this is understandable as the colour pattern of the type of Coluber calamarius (Linnaeus, 1754, p. 23, pl. vi fig. 3) is much like that of the Javan snake; the numbers of ventral and subcaudal shields are about the same in the two species. Whilst a few authors have dropped the name Calamaria for the genus for which it had been used so long, the majority of herpetologists still use the name in the sense of Boulenger (1894, p. 330). M. A. Smith (1943, p. 237) retains Calamaria: “‘ The type of Calamaria therefore is C. linnaei, the snake Boie had before him, not the Linnean species, with which he thought it identical.’ This Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. 304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature author uses the specific name calamarius (M. A. Smith, 1943, p. 228) for Oligodon calamarius (L.), a species from Ceylon previously known as Oligodon templetoni Gthr. Difference of opinion on the use of the name Calamaria, and on the type of the genus have led the International Commission to withdraw Calamaria (type Coluber calamarius L.) temporarily from the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (1958, pp. xxxili, 43), pending further investigations of the case. After this brief outline of the case as it stands today, it may be worth while to review the early history of the names Calamaria and Calamaria linnaei. The following four publications issued in 1826 have a bearing on this case. FITzIncer, L., 1826. Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihrer Natiirlichen Verwandtschaften nebst einer Verwandtschafts-Tafel und einem Verzeich- nisse der Reptilien-Sammlung des k.k. zoologischen Museums zu Wien. (8) + 66 pp., 1 table, J. G. Heubner, Wien. Borg, F., 1826. Generaliibersicht der Familien und Gattungen der Ophidier. Isis, vol. 19, pt. 10, columns 981-982. SCHLEGEL, 1826a. Notice sur l’Erpétologie de Vile de Java; par M. Boié, (Ouvrage manuscrit). Bull. Sci. nat. géol., vol. 9, 2nd part, October’, pp. 233-240. SCHLEGEL, 1826b. Erpetologische Nachrichten. /J/sis, vol. 20, pt. 3, columns 281-294. For a discussion on nomenclature with regard to Calamaria it is of import- ance to know in which order the papers mentioned above were published. As to the sequence of Fitzinger 1826, Boie 1826, and Schlegel 1826b there is no doubt. It is less certain that Boie 1826 was published before Schlegel 1826a. Meise & Henning (1935, Zool. Anz. 109 : 148) published convincing evidence that Fitzinger’s Neue Classification was published before Jsis, vol. 19, pt. 9 was issued. Hence it is clear that Fitzinger 1826 was published before Boie 1826 (published in Jsis, vol. 19, pt. 10), and this again preceded Schlegel 1826b (published in Jsis, vol. 20). Apparently it is not known at which exact dates the parts of Jsis were issued. Vol. 19, pt. 9, contains a letter dated July 23rd, 1826; this part may have been published in August, and then part 10 may have appeared in September. However, it may also be that part 9 was published in September and part 10 in October; should this be the case, Boie 1826 and Schlegel 1826a would have appeared in the same month, and there is no evidence as to which of the two appeared first. Schlegel’s “‘ Erpetologische Nachrichten” usually are cited as dating from 1827, and indeed the title page of vol. 20 of Jsis bears the year 1827. However, the signatures of part 1-3, plates I, II in part 2 of Jsis, vol. 20, are dated 18262. For the time being we take it that Schlegel’s paper (1826b) 1 Errata in this part of the Bulletin are corrected on the last page (p. 384) of the third part: “Errata d’octobre 1826”. The second part contains on p. 256 the errata for September 1826. 2 There is a distinct indication that part 1, of vol. 20, was published well before the end of the year 1826. On the first page of this part ‘* Cornelia ’’ an almanac for ladies, for the year 1827, is reviewed; it is stated to be an excellent present that husbands should give their wives for the new year, and it is added that ‘‘ Cornelia ’’ appeared early. } From part 4 onward the signatures are not dated. For the first time a date from the year 1827 appears in part 10, viz., a letter dated February, 1827. ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305 appeared towards the end of the year 1826, and thus after Schlegel 1826a. Originally we supposed that Jsis appeared in monthly parts, and that part 9 was the September issue, part 10, October, etc., but this apparently does not hold good. Whether the publication in 1826 of three parts of vol. 20 indicates that we must move forward the publication dates of the parts of vol. 19 is not clear to us. In any case, it is extremely unlikely that vol. 19, part 9, was issued before August 1826. In order definitely to settle the question of the relative dates of these three publications, a ruling by the International Commission seems to be necessary. Therefore it is requested here that the Commission under their plenary powers rule that the publication indicated here as Schlegel, 1826a, is to be considered as having been published before that indicated as Schlegel, 1826b, but after that marked here Boie, 1826. After these remarks upon the dates of publication of the papers concerned we may now turn to the bearing they have upon the generic name Calamaria. Fitzinger, 1826, p. 56, among the species of the genus Duberria mentions D. lumbricoidea (Calamaria lumbricoidea Boie), and D. tessellata (Calmaria tessellata Boie). The locality (“‘Ex Asia, Insula Java”) and the German names are mentioned, but no description is given. The two specific names we consider to be nomina nuda, and we would consider the generic name Calamaria as used by Fitzinger also a nomen nudum. There is just a possibility that someone might argue that Fitzinger’s use of the name Calamaria as a synonym in the list of species, implies that Calamaria has the same characters as Duberria (which are mentioned in the key on p. 29), and that this validates Calamaria as an alternate name for Duberria. Although we would consider this argument far- fetched we believe it best to point to this possibility, because this is the first time that the name Calamaria appeared in print. For the present we consider Calamaria Fitzinger, 1826, a nomen nudum. F. Boie, 1826, column 981: “‘Calamaria H. Boie. Col. calamarius Lin. u.v.a.” This is the first paper in which the generic name Calamaria is validly pro- posed. Coluber calamarius L. is the type of the genus, both as it is the only valid species mentioned by name, and by tautonymy. Schlegel, 1826a, p. 236, mentions H. Boie’s new genus Calamaria. The only information given is that it is a very natural genus, that nearly all the species are new, and they come from Java. These remarks do not give any positive information about the genus, and the validity of the generic name, such as used in this paper, depends solely on the valid species included. Schlegel mentions seven species by name. Of these, six have not been described previously and neither are they described by Schlegel. The names /Jumbricoidea, tessellata, maculosa, multipunctata, virgulata, and reticulata are nomina nuda; they do not give any information about the genus. The only indication is the mention of Calamaria Linnaei (Col. calamaria L.). This reference to Coluber calamarius L. validates the generic name as well as the species name Calamaria linnaei. As it is the only valid species included, as well as by tautonymy, Calamaria linnaei (substitute for Coluber calamarius) is the type of the genus Calamaria as used by Schlegel. 306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Schlegel, 1826b, column 291, mentions H. Boie’s new genus Calamaria; seven species are mentioned, and the names of six of these (/umbricoidea, tessellata, maculosa, multipunctata, virgulata and reticulata are nomina nuda. The only valid species is again C. Linnaei (Col. calamarius L.). If we leave Fitzinger’s (1826, p. 56) use of the name Ca/amaria out of the discussion, we have to deal with three papers (F. Boie, 1826; Schlegel, 1826a, 1826b) in which the genus Calamaria is mentioned. In all three the name Calamaria is validated only by the reference to Coluber calamarius L., and if only these three papers are considered there is no doubt that the Commission could do but little else than place Calamaria with Coluber calamarius L. on the Official List of Generic Names. Nevertheless, to reach a reasonable conclusion about this case the further history must be examined. F. Boie, 1827 (Bemerkungen iiber Merrem’s Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. le Lieferung: Ophidier. Jsis 20 (6); columns 508-566), again deals with the genus Calamaria. In column 519 a diagnosis of the genus Calamaria is given, and Coluber calamarius L. is mentioned as the type-species. In column 523 it is stated that calamarius is a Calamaria, described in the [never published] Erpétologie de Java. In columns 539-540 six species are mentioned, viz., Linnaei H. Boie (Col. calamarius Linn.), multipunctata Reinw., lumbricoidea H. Boie, maculosa Reinw., reticulata Reinw., virgulata H. Boie. Of these six names, maculosa and reticulata are nomina nuda, and they need not be considered here. Of C. lin- naei no description is given, and the only indication given as to its identity is again the reference to Coluber calamarius L. Three species, C. multipunctata, C. lumbricoidea, and C. virgulata, are validated by brief descriptions. From this time onwards all authors accepted Boie’s point of view that Coluber calamarius L. and Calamaria linnaei Boie were the same species, until Andersson (1899, p. 8) showed that the type specimen of Coluber calamarius L. does not fit the diagnosis of the genus as this was currently accepted. F. Boie definitely refers to the presence of but one pair of shields on the upper surface of the snout, whilst the type of Coluber calamarius L. has two pairs of shields (internasals and prefrontals); moreover, Coluber calamarius L. has fifteen rows of scales, whilst the Calamaria species have but thirteen rows. Among Boie’s manuscript notes for the “‘Erpétologie de Java”’ (present in the Leiden Museum), one sheet is marked Calamaria linnaei, and this contains the description of a specimen from Java (with a reference to a manuscript name given by Kuhl & Van Hasselt). The description, which mentions the thirteen rows of scales, makes it clear that Boie erred when he considered the snake he had before him to be identical with Coluber calamarius L. (That he was convinced of the identity follows from his remark: “die Abbildung in Mus. Ad. Frieder. I tab. vi f3 ist sehr kenntlich”’). No description of the Javan Calamaria linnaei appeared until 1837, when Schlegel (Essai sur la Physionomie des Serpens (1) : 130, and (2) : 28) described and figured it. Schlegel (1837, pt. 2, p. 28) considered Boie’s Calamaria multipunctata, C. maculata (C. maculosa is meant), C. reticulata and C. tessellata as varieties of C. linnaei. 7 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307 From the survey given above, the situation may be summarized as follows: I. Should Fitzinger’s (1826, p. 56) mention of Calamaria be accepted as validating this name, Calamaria Fitzinger is a synonym of Duberria Fitzinger (1826, p. 29). II. If Coluber calamarius L. is accepted as type of the genus Calamaria, the generic name Calamaria passes into the synonymy of Oligodon Fitzinger (1826, p. 29), and Calamaria linnaei Boie becomes a synonym of Oligodon calamarius (E.); III. If, on the basis of Boie’s manuscript notes together with the evidence provided by Andersson (1899, p. 8), one accepts that the species, which Boie intended to describe as Calamaria linnaei, is different from Coluber calamarius L., and that the two species are not congeneric, two courses of action remain open. IIIa. Coluber calamarius L. is retained in the genus Calamaria, and Cala- maria linnaei is removed from it. The result would be that the generic name Calamaria can no longer be used for the genus to which it has been applied for over a century; this applies also to the cases mentioned under I and II. The genus commonly known as Calamaria then will have to be named Changulia Gray (/lustr. Ind. Zool. I, 1835, pl. 85, fig. 3; type Changulia albiventer Gray). This change of names would promote confusion instead of stability. To retain Coluber calamarius in the genus Calamaria, and to remove Calamaria linnaei from this genus must be considered the opposite of Boie’s intentions, and it is irrational. Hence, this course must be rejected. IIIb. Coluber calamarius L. is removed from the genus Calamaria, and it is suppressed as a synonym of Calamaria linnaei. The consequences of this action are as follows. IIIb 1. Calamaria linnaei Schlegel 1826a, Schlegel 1826b, Boie 1827, and of various contemporary authors (e.g. Wagler, Natiirliches System der Amphi- bien, 1830, p. 192) becomes a nomen nudum, because by the removal of Coluber calamarius L. from its synonymy, there is no indication whatever as to the identity of the species. IIIb 2. In consequence of this Calamaria Boie, 1826, Schlegel, 1826a, and Schlegel, 1826b, becomes a nomen nudum, because the genus no longer contains any valid species, and no description or indication as to the identity of the genus is given. IIIb 3. If Calamaria Boie, 1826, Schlegel, 1826a, and Schlegel 1826b is a nomen nudum (see IIIb 2), the name is available for the genus described by Boie in 1827. The removal of Coluber calamarius L. from the genus (see IIIb) leaves the genus without a type-species; Ca/amaria linnaei cannot be designated as such, because it is a nomen nudum (see IIIb 1). One of the other species, validly described at that time (multipunctata, lumbricoidea, or virgulata) must be designated the type-species. We propose to select Calamaria lumbricoidea Boie, 1827, as type of the genus. Of this species three syntypes are still present in the collections of the Rijks- museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden (reg. nr. 42), and from these we have selected one (now registered under nr. 10543) as lectotype of the species. Of Calamaria multipunctata Boie, 1827, the holotype could not be found, and it must be considered lost; moreover, this species is involved in the nomenclatorial 308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature discussion concerning Calamaria linnaei of Schlegel, 1837 (see below), and therefore, it seems unwise to select it as the type-species of the genus. Calamaria virgulata Boie, 1827, is still represented by the holotype, but this species has for a time (Schlegel, 1837, Essai Physion. Serp. (2): 28; Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, Erp. gén. 7 : 89) been considered to be identical with Calamaria lumbri- coidea Boie. IIIb 4. If the generic name Calamaria is to be retained for the genus diagnosed by F. Boie (1827, column 519) it becomes necessary to cancel Opinion 92 in so far as it deals with Calamaria; all use of the name Calamaria prior to F. Boie’s (1827) paper must be suppressed, as well as all type designations prior to the decision to be taken by the Commission. The generic name Calamaria Boie (1827, column 519) must be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Calamaria lumbricoidea Boie (1827, column 540) as type of the genus. Calamaria Fitzinger (1826, p. 56), and Calamaria H. Boie (in F. Boie, 1826, column 981; Schlegel, 1826a, p. 236; Schlegel 1826b, column 291) and of all other authors prior to F. Boie (1827) must be placed on the list of rejected names. It may further be necessary to suppress F. Boie’s (1827, column 523) remark: “‘ 16. Calamarius. Eine Calamaria und in der Erpétologie de Java beschrieben Vaterland Java. Das citat bey Seba zu streichen.”’ IV. Asanalternative possibility the Commission might consider suppressing Coluber calamarius L., 1758, and all subsequent use of this name. This might greatly simplify any action to be taken. The consequence would be that Calamaria linnaei would remain a nomen nudum until this species was described by Schlegel in 1837; the generic name Ca/amaria would remain a nomen nudum (the genus not having been described, and no valid species being included in it) until it was described by F. Boie (1827, column 519), and Calamaria lumbri- coidea Boie, 1827, can be designated its type-species, as is proposed above (IIIb 3). For reasons of safety Fitzinger’s (1826, p. 56) use of the name Calamaria would still need to be suppressed or it should be declared invalid. The species from Ceylon for which M. A. Smith (1943, Fauna Brit. Ind., Rept. Amph. 3, Serpentes : 228) uses the name Oligodon calamarius would have to revert to the name Oligodon templetoni Gthr. under which it was known from 1862 until 1943. A few remarks may be made about the use of Ca/amaria as a generic name since the genus was diagnosed by F. Boie (1827, column 519). Schlegel (1837, pt. 2, pp. 27-48) placed eighteen species in the genus, but sixteen of these have been transferred to sixteen different genera; among the genera merged with Calamaria by Schlegel is Oligodon Fitzinger, 1826, the genus to which Coluber calamarius belongs. Dumeril, Bibron & Duméril (1854, Erp. gén. 7 : 60) restricted the genus Calamaria again, and since that time there never has been any misunderstanding about the characters and contents of the genus; every herpetologist knew what was meant by Ca/amaria. The name has been used for the genus as this was diagnosed by Boie (1827) in all major herpetological works, e.g., G. A. BOULENGER, Reptilia and Batrachia, Fauna Brit. Ind., 1890. ee wpdie nada o iS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309 G. A. BOULENGER, Catalogue of Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), Vol. 2, 1894. —— Reptilia and Batrachia, Vert. Fauna Mal. Pen., 1912. DE Root, Reptiles Indo-Austr. Arch., vol. 2, 1917. H. TayLor, Snakes of the Philippine Islands, 1922. A. SMITH, The Reptilia and Amphibia of the Malay Peninsula, Bull. Raffi. Mus. no. 3, 1930. Bourret, Serpents de I’ Indo-Chine, 1936. A. SmiTH, Reptilia and Amphibia, vol. 3, Serpentes-Fauna Brit. Ind., 1943. C. P. J. De Haas, Checklist of the Snakes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago, Treubia, vol. 20, 1950, pp. 511-625. M. W. F. Tweepie, The Snakes of Malaya, 1953. Besides, there are scores of papers in which the name Calamaria has been used. Mertens (1929, Senckenbergiana 11: 30-31) refers to Andersson’s paper about Coluber calamarius; he refers Calamaria to the synonymy of Oligodon and uses Changulia for the genus commonly known as Calamaria. This author correctly points out that Calamaria linnaei Boie is nothing but a synonym of Coluber calamarius L., and he replaces Calamaria linnaei auct. by Changulia multipunctata (Boie). C.P.J. de Haas, 1941, Treubia 18 : 327-375 uses the generic name Changulia, and for one of the species Changulia multi- punctata. A few others may have used Changulia, but the use of this name is negligible as compared to the use of Calamaria. N. E. M. R. M. Calamaria linnaei As mentioned above (IIIb 1), removal of Coluber calamarius L. from the synonymy of Calamaria linnaei Boie, or suppression of Coluber calamarius | 1758 (IV), makes Calamaria linnaei Boie a nomen nudum. As far as we are aware the first description of Calamaria linnaei (such as Boie intended this species to be) was given by Schlegel (1837, Essai Physion. Serp. (1) : 130, and (2) : 28). It might be argued that if measures are taken to retain the name Calamaria for the genus, it would be well for the Commission to decide upon measures to retain Calamaria linnaei, as this name (like that of the genus) has been in common use for over a century. However, between the first publication of the name (Schlegel, 1826a, p. 236), and that of the first description by Schlegel (1837), other names had already been published for species, which are considered conspecific with the Calamaria linnaei of Schlegel. These names and their history are enumerated below. Calamaria multipunctata was introduced as a nomen nudum by Schlegel (1826a, p. 236; 1826b, column 291); it was validated by a short diagnosis by F. Boie (1827, column 540). The species was also mentioned by H. Boie (1828, Bijdr. Natk. Wet. 3 : 249; 1828b, Isis 21 (10), column 1034), by Wagler (1831, Natiirl. Syst. Amp.: 192), and by Gray (Syn., in Griffith, 1831, An. Kingd. : 91: Col. multipunctata). Schlegel (1837, Essai Physion. Serp. (2) : 29) considered it a colour variety of his calamaria linnaei. Calamaria tessellata was first mentioned by Fitzinger (1826, p. 56) as a synonym of Duberria tessellata, a nomen nudum; it was also mentioned as a nomen nudum by Schlegel (1826a, p. 236: tesselata; 1826b, column 291). 310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature H. Boie (1828, Bijdr. Natk. Wet. 3 : 249) stated that tessellata and multipunctata are chequered red and black below; multipunctata may be separated from tessellata because the first-mentioned is also red above. With this reference to the coloration, one may consider Calamaria tessellata to be validly proposed by Boie (1828, p. 249; the same remarks were published by H. Boie, 1828b, Isis, 21 (10), column 1034). ‘The species was also mentioned by Gray (Syn., in Griffith, 1831, An. Kingd. : 91: Col. tessalata). Calamaria maculosa was introduced as a nomen nudum by Schlegel (1826a, p. 236; 1826b, column 291), and by F. Boie (1827, column 540). H. Boie (1828, Bijdr. Natk. Wet. 3 : 249; 1828b, Isis 21 (10), column 1034) stated that maculosa is adorned with the same red colour as multipunctata, but no characters were given by which these two species can be distinguished from each other, and hence, we do not consider Boie’s remarks to constitute a description. The species was also mentioned by Gray (Syn., in Griffith, 1831, An. Kingd. : 91: Col. maculosa). Schlegel (1837, Essai Physion. Serp. (2) : 29: Cal. maculata) considered it a colour variety of his Calamaria linnaei; the short remark on its colour pattern validates the name Calamaria maculata (to which name Schlegel changed Boie’s maculosa). Calamaria reticulata was introduced as a nomen nudum by Schlegel (1826a, p. 236; 1826b, column 291), and it was mentioned by F. Boie (1827, column 540). The name was validated by Schlegel (1837, Essai Physion. Serp. (2) : 29) by a short remark on the colour pattern of a form, which he considered to be a colour variety of his Calamaria linnaei. Hence, should Calamaria linnaei Boie (in Schlegel 1826a, p. 236; 1826b, column 291; etc.) become a nomen nudum (see IIIb 1), there are five names available to replace it, viz., Calamaria multipunctata Boie, 1827; Calamaria tessellata Boie, 1828; Calamaria linnaei Schlegel, 1837; Calamaria maculata Schlegel, 1837; and Calamaria reticulata Schlegel, 1837. The Commission is strongly urged to retain the generic name Calamaria, and as has been explained above, this can be done only by suppressing a number of publications in so far as they refer to this genus and its type-species, or by suppressing Coluber calamarius L. and all further use of the name. It is hoped that the Commission will at the same time consider retaining the species name Calamaria linnaei, which has always been closely associated with the generic name Calamaria. To retain Calamaria linnaei for the Javan species, which Boie intended to describe, it will be necessary to suppress all use of Calamaria linnaei, Calamaria multipunctata, Calamaria tessellata, Calamaria maculosa, and Calamaria reticulata prior to the publication of Schlegel’s Essai sur la Physionomie des Serpens (1837). It must be remembered that from the time F. Boie diagnosed the genus (1827, column 519) to the time at which Schlegel (1837) confused matters by including species of various genera in the genus Calamaria, and again from 1854 (Dumeéril, Bibron & Duméril, Erp. gén. 7 : 60) onwards, there has never been any doubt as to the identity of the genus Calamaria. From Schlegel’s time onwards no one has been in doubt about what was meant by Calamaria linnaei. The name Calamaria for a genus with many species, and the name Calamaria linnaei for a common Javan species, have been used in a great number of publi- a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 311 cations. Changing of these names will only lead to confusion. Stability in nomenclature will be promoted by retaining these well known names. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to cancel Opinion 92 insofar as it deals with Ca/amaria Boie, 1827; (b) to Rule that the publication here indicated as Schlegel, 1826a, is to be considered as having been published before that indicated as Schlegel, 1826b, but after that indicated as Boie, 1826; (c) to suppress the generic name Calamaria Fitzinger, 1826, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (d) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Calamaria Boie, 1827, made prior to the present Ruling, and having done so, to designate Calamaria lumbricoides Boie, 1827, to be the type-species of that genus; (e) to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) calamarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber calamarius; (ii) multipunctata Boie, 1827, as published in the binomen Cala- maria multipunctata; (ili) tessellata Boie, 1828, as published in the binomen Calamaria tessellata; (iv) maculata Schlegel, 1837, as published in the binomen Cala- maria maculata; (v) reticulata Schlegel, 1837, as published in binomen Calamaria reticulata; (2) to place the generic name Calamaria Boie, 1827, (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (d) above, Calamaria lumbricoidea Boie, 1827, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) umbricoidea Boie, 1827, as published in the binomen Calamaria lumbricoidea as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Brongers- ma, Inger & Marx, 1965 (type-species of Calamaria Boie, 1827); (b) Jinnaei Schlegel, 1837, as published in the binomen Calamaria linnaei,; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Calamaria Fitzinger, 1826 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c) above); (b) Calamaria Boie, 1826 (a nomen nudum); (c) Calamaria Schlegel, 1826a (a nomen nudum); (d) Calamaria Schlegel, 1826b (a nomen nudum); sie Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (5) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (e) above): (a) calamarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber calamarius; (b) multipunctata Boie, 1827, as published in the binomen Calamaria multipunctata; (c) tessellata Boie, 1828, as published in the binomen Calamaria tessellata; (d) maculata Schlegel, 1837, as published in the binomen Calamaria maculata; (e) reticulata Schlegel, 1837, as published in the binomen Calamaria reticulata. REFERENCES ANDERSSON, G. 1899. Catalogue of Linnean type-specimens of Snakes in the Royal Museum in Stockholm. Bih. Svenska Vet. Ak. Handl., 24 (IV) no. 6, 1-35 APSTEIN, C. 1915. Nomina Conservanda. Sitz. Ber. Ges. Natf. Fr. Berlin, 1915, 119-202 Bor, F. 1826. Generaliibersicht der Familien und Gattungen der Ophidier. Isis (Oken), 19 (10), columns 981-982 — 1827. Bemerkungen iiber Merrem’s Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. le Lieferung: Ophidier. sis (Oken), 20 (6), columns 508-566 Bor, H. 1828. Uittreksels uit brieven van Heinrich Boie van Java aan H. Schlegel, conservator animalium vertebratorum aan ’s Rijks Museum te Leyden. Bijdr. Natk. Wet., 3, 231-252 BouLeNGeR, G. A. 1894. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), 2, XI + 382, text-figs., 20 pls. DumeriL, A. M. C., Brsron, G., and DumeriL, A. 1854. Erpétologie générale, ou Histoire Naturelle compléte des Reptiles. 7, 1 partie, XVI + 780 pp. Paris, Roret Gray, J. E. 1831. A Synopsis of the Species of the Class Reptilia, pp. 1-110, in E. Griffith & E. Pigeon, The Animal Kingdom, 1831. London, Whittaker, Treacher & Co. — 1830-1834. Illustrations of Indian Zoology, chiefly selected from the collection of Major-General Hardwicke, 2. London, Treuttel Haas, C. P. J. pe. 1941. Some Notes on the Biology of Snakes and on their Distri- bution in two Districts of West Java. Treubia, 18 (2) 327-375, figs. i-viii Linnaeus, C. 1754. Museum Sae. Rae Ma. tis Adolphi Frederici, etc. xxx+96-+-8 pp, 33 pls. Holmiae — 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna tria naturae, secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Loci. Ed. x, 1, (4) + 826. Holmiae, L. Salvius Meise, W., and HENNIG, W. 1935. Zur Kenntnis von Dendrophis und Chrysopelea. Zool. Anz., 109 (5/6) 138-150 MERTENS, R. 1929. ber eine kleine herpetologische Sammlung aus Java. Senckenbergiana, 11 (1/2) 22-33 SCHLEGEL, H. 1826a. Notice sur l’Erpétologie de Vile de Java; par M. Boié, (Ouvrage manuscrit). Bull. Sci. nat. géol. (Férussac), 9, (2) October, 1826, 233-240 ar. ?} aye eee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313 SCHLEGEL, H. 1826b. Erpetologische Nachrichten. Isis (Oken), 20 (3), columns 281-294 —— 1837. Essai sur la Physionomie des Serpens. xxviii +251 +(2)+606 +xvi, atlas SmitH, M. A. 1943. Reptilia and Amphibia, 3, Serpentes. Fauna Brit. India. xii+583, 166 text-figs., 1 map. London, Taylor & Francis WAGLER, J. 1830. Natiirliches System der Amphibien, mit vorangehender Classifica- tion der Sdugthiere und Vogel. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Zoologie vi+354. Miinchen, Stuttgart, and Tiibingen, J. G. Gotta 314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TEREBRATULA OBLONGIOR BEUTH, 1776 (BRACHIOPODA): PROPOSED REJECTION AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1703 By U. Jux and F. Strauch (Department of Geology, University of Cologne, W. Germany) In 1820 (: 259-260) E. F. v. Schlotheim described a strange brachiopod under the binomen Terebratulites gryphus. This spiriferid index fossil which came from the Givetian (Biicheler Schichten) of the Bergisch Gladbach—Paffrath syncline (Klutstein near Schildgen), was not figured until 1822 when the supple- ments appeared. No additional comments were made. 2. The original material on which Schlotheim based his species is completely preserved in the Geological Department and Museum of the Humboldt Uni- versity in Berlin. However, Schlotheim did not indicate a type. His figures (1822 : tab. 19, fig. 1) are so idealized that there is no specimen to which they properly can be attributed. Moreover, the collection contains more than one species: among the six syntypes there is a big, partly damaged specimen having the characteristic pouches of Uncites (Winterfeldia) paulinae Winterfeld, 1895. 3. Furthermore, Schlotheim was not the first describer of this form (i.e. the form for which Schlotheim apparently intended the name gryphus) for in 1776 (: 134, N.74) F. Beuth described and named this same brachiopod (Terebratula oblongior) in a diagnostic manner and added to it a precise, unidealized figure (: tab. 2, N.74) reproduced below. His material was collected from the same locality. 4. Despite the fact that E. Suess (1856 : 90), Th. Davidson (1864-65 : 22- 23), F. A. Quenstedt (1871 : 232) and G. Meyer (1879 : 67-68) referred to Beuth’s priority, both they and later students likewise, continued to use the binomen Uncites gryphus (Schlotheim) or U. gryphoides (Schlotheim), since Defrance 1827 (: 151-152; 1828 : 256-257) and 1825 in Blainville (: 630) had prt 34 N74. N. 74. Tercbratula oblongior , denfé {triata, roftro valve fuperioris prominente, inferiis valde ven tricofa. prope Paffrath. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. ste Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315 established the new genus Uncite or Uncites. Both these generic names were mentioned on the same page in Defrance’s 1827 paper, yet in Blainville (1825) Uncite only was mentioned. Since C. F. Roemer (1844) the name Uncites has been commonly applied. Under the much junior synonym U. gryphus (Schlot- heim), Beuth’s Terebratula oblongior went into the literature—even into the textbooks. 5. Granted that Beuth used a binomen, the case in question deals with a nomen oblitum and has to be announced to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Article 23b(i)). There is no doubt that Beuth knew the binominal system of nomenclature and used it. Thus he identified fossils with specific names founded by Linné (for example Dentalia minuta L. : 118). In the case of a new species, new names were associated specifically with the generic names (for example Terebratula). Hence it is clear that a comma in the Latin text was put after the species name ob/ongior in order to separate from the binomen significant features of the newly described brachiopod. 6. Beuth’s collection was transferred to the Museum of the Geology Depart- ment in Bonn and disappeared there. Brachiopods which were described by Schlotheim from the Givetian or Frasnian of the Bergisches Land (Refrath, Bensberg, Gladbach, Paffrath) are sometimes falsely attributed to the Eifel (= Eiffel). This material probably was not collected by himself but came into his hands via Bonn (for example Cyrtospirifer aperturatus or Uncites gryphus). This may explain the fact that among Schlotheim’s syntypes of Terebratulites gryphus a specimen occurs which can be easily identified with the one copied for the woodcut of Beuth. This specimen is now selected (by the present authors) as lectotype for Uncites gryphus (Schlotheim, 1820). 7. In view of the above facts, the International Commission is asked to decide whether the junior or senior synonym should be stabilized as type- species of Uncites (non Uncite). There would seem to be little useful purpose in substituting the senior synonym, especially since the binomen Uncites gryphus has been clearly cited in many fossil lists, publications on stratigraphy of the Givetian and even in the textbooks. As it deals with a widespread fossil (Eurasia), the re-introduction of Beuth’s specific name would almost certainly cause confusion. 8. It is therefore recommended that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) reject the specific name oblongior Beuth, 1776, as published in the binomen Terebratula oblongior, as a nomen oblitum; (2) place the specific name gryphus Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the binomen Terebratulites gryphus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; ; (3) place the name rejected in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Beutn, F. 1776. Juliae et Montium subterranea . . . Diisseldorf, 181 pp. BLAINVILLE, H. M. de. 1825 (Atlas 1827). Manuel de Malacologie et de Conchiologie. Paris, 664 pp. 316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Davipson, T. 1864-1865. A Monograph of the British Fossil Brachiopoda, V1, The Devonian Brachiopoda. Palaeont. Soc. for 1870, London, 131 pp. DEFRANCE, J. L. M. 1827. Note sur un nouveau genre de coquille bivalve. Bull. Sci. nat. géol., Paris 12 : 151-152 (edit. M. de Bon. de Férussac) — 1828. Uncite (Foss.). Dict. Sci. nat., Paris 56 : 256-257 Meyer, G. 1879. Der mitteldevonische Kalk von Paffrath. Bonn, 67 pp. QUENSTEDT, F. A. 1871. Die Brachiopoden. Leipzig, 748 pp. SCHLOTHEIM, E. F. von. 1820. Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte. Gotha, 62 and 436 pp. —— 1822. Nachtrdge zur Petrefactenkunde (including an atlas with 21 plates). Gotha, 100 pp. Suess, E. 1866. Classification der Brachiopoden von Thomas Davidson Esq. Wien, 160 pp. Rh death axiedtiive Siew Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317 KASSINA GIRARD, 1853 (AMPHIBIA: ANURA): PROPOSED GRANT OF PRIORITY OVER HYLAMBATES DUMERIL, 1853. Z.NAS.) 1718 By Raymond F. Laurent (/nstituto Miguel Lillo, San Miguel de Tucuman, Argentina), and Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) It has been shown by Laurent and Combaz (1950, Rev. Zool. Afr. 43 : 269- 276), and has been reiterated by Poynton (1964, Ann. Natal Mus. 17 : 175), that the monotypic Hylambates Dumeéril, 1853 (Ann. Sci. Nat. (3) 19 : 162, H. maculatus Duméril type by monotypy) is congeneric with the abundantly polytypic Kassina Girard, 1853 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia 6 : 421, Cystignathus senegalensis Duméril and Bibron type by monotypy). Unfortunately, the generic names Hylambates and Kassina appeared the same year and priority has not been conclusively demonstrable. According to the “An Index to the Scientific Contents of the Journal and Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia” (1913), receipt of the parts (11, 12 in one) of volume 6 (pp. 395-458) containing Girard’s description (p. 421) was acknowledged by the Smithsonian Institution on Dec. 31, 1853, whereas receipt of parts 9 and 10 (in one) was acknowledged, by the same on September 5, 1853. It is therefore assured that the actual publication (i.e. mailing) date for parts 11-12 falls between September 5 and December 31, 1853, with a strong probability of being in December; in any event, it certainly precedes December 31, 1853, which represents a date of acknowledgment (and perhaps of receipt), not of mailing. Duméril’s publication appeared certainly between May 9, 1853, and Novem- ber 24, 1853, according to internal evidence in volumes 19 and 20 (both 1853) of the Annales: on p. 238 of vol. 19 an extract is published of a letter dated May 9, 1853, and on p. 320 of vol. 20 an extract is published of a letter dated November 24, 1853, correcting an article appearing on p. 179 of vol. 19. It is possible that the latter letter was written before the article of vol. 19, p. 179 appeared, but it is unlikely. Direct inquiry in Paris by the senior author produced only acknow- ledgment of inability to fix even the month of publication. An impartial evaluation of probabilities would give priority to Duméril’s name, although no certainty can exist. Girard’s article could have appeared as early as September, and Duméril’s article as late as November. In fact, Article 21 of the 1964 Code requires that the date of publication be accepted “‘as the earliest day demonstrated by the evidence,” and also the “latest day” “‘if the specified date of publication contained within a work is a range of dates.” There is no specified date of publication, other than 1853, but acceptance of November 24 and December 31 as dates of publication of Duméril’s and Girard’s names respectively would conform with the spirit of Article 21. Unfortunately the establishment of priority of Hylambates Duméril over Kassina Girard would be extremely confusing in view of the history of these names. Hylambates has long been used for treefrogs, whereas Kassina has been Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. 318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature used for landfrogs. A large number of species has been assigned to each genus in the past, and Kassina continues to be recognized at present as an abundantly polytypic genus, whereas Hylambates has been reduced to monotypy through removal of all species save maculatus to the genera Leptopelis Giinther, 1858, Phlyctimantis Laurent and Combaz, 1950, and Cryptothylax Laurent and Combaz, 1950. Now to combine H. maculatus with all the species of Kassina under the name Hylambates would be to distort unduly the concept associated with the name for over a century. Nomenclatural needs are best served by adaptation of the name Kassina for the assemblage now proposed. In fact, both Poynton and the senior author years ago would have united maculatus with its relatives in Kassina, where it properly belongs zoologically, had it not been for the belief that in so doing it would be necessary to accept the nomen- claturally repugnant union of all species under the name Hylambates. Accordingly we propose that, in view of the actual uncertainty of priority of these two names in relation to each other, and the strong nomenclatural advantage of Kassina over Hylambates in the present circumstances, the Com- mission declare priority of Kassina despite the strong probability that Hylam- bates actually appeared at an earlier date. On the other hand, we regard it unwise to ask for implementation of this objective via dictation of priority of all of either journal volume over the other (each appeared in parts at different dates), or of all of any given parts of one volume over the other, or even all of the contents of one article over the other, since this might result in unnecessary nomenclatural hardships or in a commitment that might not conform with evidence unearthed in the future. We likewise regard it unwise actually to suppress the name Hylambates, which should remain available for monotypic use if desired in the future. We therefore now petition merely that the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1) use its plenary powers to grant priority to Kassina Girard, 1853, over Hylambates Duméril, 1853; (2) to place the nominal genus Kassina Girard, 1853 (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 6 : 421), type-species, by monotypy, Cystignathus sene- galensis Duméril and Bibron, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the nominal species senegalensis, as used in the combination Cystignathus senegalensis Duméril and Bibron, 1841 (Erpet. Gén. 8 : 418, type-locality Galam Lakes, Senegal; type in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle of Paris), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. =’) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319 PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF EIGHT SPECIES-GROUP NAMES OF J. F. GMELIN IN THE GENUS CONUS (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA). Z.N.S.) 1719 By Alan J. Kohn (Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.) This communication requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to make use of its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, eight specific and infraspecific names in the genus Conus published by J. F. Gmelin in the Systema Naturae, ed. 13, 1791. The shortcomings of Gmelin’s treatment of animal groups in the 13th edition of the Systema Naturae have been discussed by a number of authors, from Maton and Rackett (1804, Trans. Linn. Soc. London 7 : 181) to Dodge (1958, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 116 : 207). Although the new species names published by Gmelin are unquestionably available, it is likely that all were based entirely on previously published information, rather than on specimens. I have been unable to find any external evidence that Gmelin examined specimens of the species he described, and this position is supported by the following inter- nal evidence, translated from Gmelin’s foreword to the 13th edition of the Systema: “‘ This edition has been considerably enlarged by inserting all the more recently discovered genera and species, and in places has been enriched by drawing upon the works of later writers for fuller descriptions and synonyms.” There is no mention of the study of specimens. Gmelin placed all of the following taxa except Conus niveus in the infrageneric group, “‘ Pyriformes, basi rotundata subcylindrica sesquilongiore, quam spira.” Since the intended nature of the infraspecific taxa is not explicit, they are here considered subspecies and written in trinominal form in accord with Art. 45d(i). 1. Conus ammiralis americanus Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3378. No. 10 8. The diagnosis of C. ammiralis Linnaeus is given by Gmelin as “C. testa basi punctato-scabra’”’. The diagnosis of C. a. americanus is “‘fasciis irregularibus”’. Gmelin applied the name americanus to his second infraspecific taxon, designated as B, under C. ammiralis. The entry, “ americanus. B) fasciis irregularibus”’, is followed by five subordinate entries, designated as a-e, which Gmelin presumably considered to represent varieties of C. a. americanus. These five entries consist of brief diagnoses and indications, as follows: (a) testa fusca albo nebulosa maculataque. Rumpf mus. t. 34. f. E. Seb. mus. 3. t. 46. f. 20. Martin. Conch. 2. t. 57. f. 640. (b) testa spadiceo reticulata nebulosaque, fascia interdum alba. Rumpf mus. t. 34. f. F. Proarchithalassus. Argeny. zoomorph. t. 10. f. K.L.V. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. 320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Seb. mus? 3.7) 4828. 11, 12.20:23: Knorr Vergn. 5. t. 24. f. 4. Martin. Conch. 2. t. 57. f. 638.639. (c) testa alba fusco maculata, guttata, nebulosa punctata. List: Conch: t.. 759. f. 4, et. ts 777. f. 24; Gualt. test. t. 21. f. L. Knorr Veregn. 5. t: 13. f. 5. Mart. Conch. 2. t. 61. f. 678. (d) testa alba, fasciis aurantio lineatis. Argenv. zoom. t. 10. f. G. Seb. mus. 3. t. 44. f. 6. Mart. Cone: 2. t 535f1390: (e) Chemn. Conch. 10. t. 140. f. 1297. Identification of the ‘‘ subspecies ’’ which Gmelin intended to denote by the name C. ammiralis americanus is impossible. The diagnosis of the subspecies is not applicable to C. ammiralis Linnaeus, and the diagnoses of entries a-e encompass at least four species, none of which is C. ammiralis. Probably represented are C. pulcher [Lightfoot], C. Jocumtenens Blumenbach, C. regius Gmelin, and C. textile Linnaeus. As it is impossible to associate the name with any known species or infraspecific taxon, suppression of the name Conus ammiralis americanus as a nomen dubium is recommended. 2. Conus ammiralis guineensis Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3380. The hierarchy of entries leading to this subspecies appears to be as follows: “f) [error for y)?] fasciis regularibus.” “‘e) fascii tribus.” “* guineensis. b) testa straminea; fascia media lineis angulatis aurorae modo tinctis picta.” Two indications follow: Argenv. zoomorph. t. 10. f. Q*. Chemn. Conch. 10. t. 144. A. f. i. k. I cannot associate the diagnosis and indications of C. a. guineensis with any known species of Conus. Although no locality is given by Gmelin, the name suggests West Africa as the source. Both Argenville (1772, Conchyliologie oder Abhandlung von der Schnecken, Muscheln und andern Schaalthieren . . . nebst der Zoomorphose ... &c., Vienna) and Martini (1773, Neues Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, vol. 2, Nuremberg) cite Guinea as its locality. It is possible that the figures represent the species described later as C. guiniacus Hwass in Bruguiére (1792, Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire Naturelle des Vers, vol. 1), but this cannot be established with certainty. Suppression of the name Conus ammiralis guineensis as a nomen dubium is recommended. 3. Conus ammiralis surinamensis Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat., (ed. 13) 1 : 3380. This subspecies immediately follows C. a. guineensis, and the first two entries in the descriptive hierarchy are evidently the same for both. The third entry is ‘“ surinamensis. c) testa badia, fasciis maculatis: infima fusco alboque punctata, cingulis punctato articulatis pluribus.”” Three indications follow: Argenv. zoomorph, t. 10. f. R. Martin. Conch. 2. p. 282. vign. 26. p. 214. f. 5. +) Chemn. Conch. 10. t. 139. f. 1293. ae Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 321 The diagnosis of C. a. surinamensis appears to be based solely on the cited figures. Named by Argenville (op. cit., p. 72) “‘ der Admiral von Surinam,” the figure is too crude to be identified. The figure in Martini (op. cit.) represents the same specimen. The figure in Chemnitz (1788, Neues Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, vol. 10, Nuremberg) appears to be entirely different and probably represents C. amadis Gmelin. Hence the subspecies Gmelin intended to denote by the name Conus ammiralis surinamensis cannot be identified, and suppression of the name as a nomen dubium is recommended. 4. Conus betulinus medusa Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat., (ed. 13) 1 : 3383. No. 20 B. The diagnosis of C. betulinus Linnaeus is given by Gmelin as “ C. testa basi subemarginata rugosa: spira planiuscula mucronata.” The diagnosis of C. b. medusa is given in a subdescription as follows: “ testa...in B) alba seriebus tribus characterum violaceorum.” One indication is given, “Martin. Conch, 277,61. f. 6752”. The diagnosis of C. b. medusa appears to be based entirely on the question- ably cited figure in Martini and its brief accompanying description (op. cit., p. 318-319). Martini named this form “‘die Meduse’”. It is impossible to associate the figure and description with any species of Conus known to the writer. For this reason, suppression as a nomen dubium of the name Conus betulinus medusa is recommended. 5. Conus coffeae Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat., (ed. 13) 1 : 3388. No. 31. The diagnosis of C. coffeae is ‘‘ C. testa brevi fusca: fasciis duabus albis; spirae propiore fusco maculata,” followed by a subdescription, “ testa mediae magni- tudinis.”” One indication is given, ‘‘ Martin. Conch. 2. t. 56. f. 618.” The brief diagnosis appears to be based entirely on the cited figure of a specimen in Martini’s collection. The illustration does not appear to have been well executed, and it is impossible to identify it with any known species of Conus. The subdescription adds no useful information, and no locality is cited. Martini (1773, op. cit.) applied the names “ die Negerin mit weisser Stirnbinde ” and “ die kaffebraune Bandtute ” and considered the specimen to represent a previously undescribed and unfigured species. Martini’s brief diagnosis appears appropriate to the figured specimen but in my opinion does not make it possible to identify the species. C. coffeae has, however, often been identified with C. fumigatus Hwass in Bruguiére (1792, op. cit.), largely on the grounds that the same Martini figure is cited as an indication for the latter species (see Dillwyn, 1817, A Descriptive Catalogue of Recent Shells, vol. 1, London; Deshayes and Milne Edwards, 1845, Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres, vol. 11, Paris [as coffea, adopted by all succeeding authors]; Sowerby, 1857, Thesaurus Conchyliorum, vol. 3, London; Weinkauff, 1874, Jahrb. Deutsch. Malac. Ges., 1 : 260; Tryon, 1884, Manual of Conchology, vol. 6, Philadelphia). However, the identification of C. fumigatus depends on its diagnosis, additional description, and figure, as well as the existence of the known type specimen, rather than on the Martini figure. On the other hand, Reeve (1849, Conchologica Iconica, vol. 1, emendations) considered c. coffeae as a doubtful species which could not be satisfactorily identified. The name has proved confusing even to advocates of its acceptance, e.g. Tryon (op. cit.), who included figures of several distinct species under this 322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature name. For these reasons suppression of the name Conus coffeae as a nomen dubium is recommended. 6. Conus costatus Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat., (ed. 13) 1: 3388. No. 35. The diagnosis of C. costatus is ‘‘ C testa fusca: fascia alba rubello undulata striis crassis latisque, spira nodulosa; fascia granulata.”” One indication is given, ‘‘ Gualt. test. t. 20. f. 0.” The diagnosis appears to be taken directly from information provided by the cited figure and accompanying text by Gualtieri (1742, Index Testarum Conchy- liorum, Florence) on which, it may be concluded, the species is solely based. Gualtieri’s illustration appears to be rather impressionistic. Even with the accompanying description it cannot be assigned to any known species and must be considered unidentifiable. For this reason, suppression of Conus costatus as a nomen dubium is recommended. 7. Conus niveus Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat., (ed. 13) 1: 3392. No. 55. The diagnosis of C. niveus is “‘ C. testa conica nivea: spira prominula coronata, apertura ampla.” It is placed in the infrageneric group, “ Elongati, basi rotundata, cylindro duplo longiore, quam spira.” One indication is given, ** Born mus. Caes. Vind. test. t. 7. f. 9. The indication represents C. candidus Born (1778, Index Rerum Naturalium Musei Caesari Vindobonensis, Part 1, Vienna), although Gmelin followed Schréter (1783, Einleitung in die Conchy- lienkenntnis nach Linné, vol. 1, Halle) in not using Born’s Latin binomen. Although C. candidus possibly represents a color variant of C. marmoreus Linnaeus, this could not be unequivocally established and suppression of the name C. candidus as a nomen dubium was recommended by Kohn (1963, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 20 : 370). The infrageneric placement of C. niveus suggests a narrower shell with respect to its length than that described by Born (op. cit.) under C. candidus. However, the description of C. niveus cannot be associated with a known species of Conus and since the only cited indication is to a nomen dubium, suppression of Conus niveus Gmelin as a nomen dubium is recommended. 8. Conus oculatus Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat., (ed. 13) 1: 3387. No. 30. The diagnosis of C. oculatus is ‘* C. testa conica flava: ocellis fasciaque albis, basi oblique striata,” followed by the subdescription, “‘ Spira parum prominente, an hujus tribus?”’ One indication is given, “ Martin. Conch. 2. t. 56. f. 616.” The diagnosis appears to be based solely on the cited figure, designated by Martini “‘ die gelbe Argustute mit weissen Augen.” This figure is generally considered to be of an artificially colored shell (Dillwyn, op. cit.; Tryon, op. cit.; Tomlin, 1937, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., 22 : 283). This is probably the case but, whether true or not, the diagnosis and indication cannot be assigned to any known species of Conus. Suppression of the name Conus oculatus as a nomen dubium is therefore recommended. The concrete proposals that I now submit to the International Commission are that it should: (1) make use of its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the following species- group names: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323 (a) americanus Gmelin, 1791, as published in the combination Conus ammiralis americanus ; (b) guineensis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the combination Conus ammiralis guineensis ; (c) surinamensis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the combination Conus ammiralis surinamensis ; (d) medusa Gmelin, 1791, as published in the combination Conus betulinus medusa; (e) coffeae Gmelin, 1791, as published in the combination Conus coffeae ; (f) costatus Gmelin, 1791, as published in the combination Conus costatus; (g) niveus Gmelin, 1791, as published in the combination Conus niveus; (h) oculatus Gmelin, 1791, as published in the combination Conus oculatus ; (2) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) americanus Gmelin (1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3378) as published in the combination Conus ammiralis americanus (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above); (b) guineensis Gmelin (1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3380) as published in the combination Conus ammiralis guineensis(a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above); (c) surinamensis Gmelin (1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3380) as publish- ed in the combination Conus ammiralis surinamensis (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c) above); (d) medusa Gmelin (1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3383) as published in the combination Conus betulinus medusa a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (d) above); (e) coffeae Gmelin (1791, Syst Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3388) as published in the combination Conus coffeae (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (e) above); (f) costatus Gmelin (1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3388) as published in the combination Conus costatus (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (f) above); (g) niveus Gmelin (1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3392) as published in the combination Conus niveus (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (g) above); (h) oculatus Gmelin (1791, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3387) as published in the combination Conus oculatus (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (h) above). 324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANOPHELES AFRICANUS THEOBALD, 1901 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION AS A SPECIFIC NAME UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1722 By M. T. Gillies (c/o Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) Theobald (Mem. Liverpool Sch. Trop. Med. 4, app. : 1, 1901) gave a brief description of three females from Old Calabar, Nigeria, closely resembling the Oriental species Anopheles barbirostris Van der Wulp, 1884, under the name Anopheles barbirostris var. Africanus. The same author (Genera Insectorum. Diptera. Fam. Culicidae, 1905) listed Myzorhynchus barbirostris Van der Wulp as occurring in “ Malay Peninsula; India and Old Calabar, West Africa ”’, but made no mention of variety africanus. Theobald again (Monograph of the Culicidae or Mosquitoes, 4:81, 1907) gave barbirostris as from “ India, West Africa’, without referring to africanus. 2. Insubsequent catalogues by other authors, notably those of Christophers (Und. Med. Res. Mem. 3, 1924), Evans (Mem. Liverpool Sch. Trop. Med., New Series 3, 1927), Edwards (Genera Insectorum, Diptera. Fam. Culicidae, 1932), Evans (Mosquitoes of the Ethiopian Region, 2, 1938) and De Meillon (Publi. S. Afr. Inst. Med. Res. No. 49, 1947), no further reference to this name is made. However, Stone, Knight and Starcke (Synoptic Catalogue of the Mosquitoes of the World, Thomas Say Foundation 6 : 13, 1959) list it as Anopheles (Anopheles) africanus Theobald. Thus a period of 58 years seems to have elapsed between the first and any subsequent use of the name in the relevant literature. 3. As pointed out by Reid and Knight (Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 55 : 484, 1961) and by Gillies and De Meillon (Publ. S. Afr. Inst. Med. Res. in the press), africanus Theobald may possibly be a senior synonym of obscurus Griinberg, 1905, a name universally employed since its first description. The name africanus cannot be rejected as a nomen oblitum as it was reintroduced before 1960. 4. In the interests of stability, therefore, application is made to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name africanus Theobald, 1901, as used in the binomen Anopheles africanus for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Parts 5/6. January 1966. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325 PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THREE NOMINA OBLITA IN THE FAMILY BELONIDAE (PISCES). Z.N. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Opinion 717 (Arizona elegans Kennicott, 1859) 718 (Eucypris Vavra, 1891) 719 (Aelia rostrata Boheman, 1852) 720 (Tetrastichus Walker, 1842) 721 (Dicellomus Hall, 1871) 722 (Orbiculoidea d’Orbigny, 1847) 723 (Odontaspis Agassiz, 1838) ... 724 (Endothyra bowmani Phillips, [1846]) 725 (SPONDYLIASPIDINAE Schwarz, 1898) 726 (Jovellania Bayle, 1879) 727 (Three specific names of Spanish Palaeozoic Crinoidea) 728 (Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860) 729 (Mymar Curtis, 1829) 730 ( Yerbua Forster, 1778) 731 (Psylla Geoffroy, 1762) be 732 (Bomolochus Von Nordmann, 1832) 733 (Candacia Dana, 1846) z 734 (Naiadites angulatus Dawson, 1860) 735 (Biomphalaria Preston, 1910) 736 (Flexicalymene Shirley, 1936) 737 (Bironella gracilis Theobald, 1905) eS 738 (Triturus (Gyrinophilus) lutescens Rafinesque, 1832) 739 (Sigara Fabricius and Micronecta Kirkaldy) 740 (Pisania Bivona, 1832) 741 (Ctenophthalmus Kolenati, 1856) 742 (Ceratomya Sandberger, 1864) 743 (Xylocopa Latreille, [1802-1803]) 744 (Ablabes chinensis Giinther, 1889) 745 (Coluber subocularis Brown, 1901) ... 746 (Spilotes melanurus Duméril, Bibron & DumériJ, 1854) 747 (Rhynchium Spinola, 1806) ... 748 (Eulachnus del Guercio, 1909) 749 (Atherina japonica Houttuyn, 1782) 750 (Melissodes fonscolombei Romand, 1841) ... 751 (Leprota Melichar, 1912) 361 Page 162 164 167 169 171 173 176 178 180 182 184 186 188 218 220 222 362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Opinion Page 752 (Boriomyia Banks, 1904)... Bs ae nee 53 ae. 753 (Four Linnaean species of Conus) e. ee = eae. 754 (Crassispira Swainson, 1840) se ise — ee .s $9 eee 755 (Calephelis Grote & Robinson, 1869) ue = ate DA eee 756 (Leptophis vertebralis Duméril, Bibron & Ponieal 1854) ... 284 757 (Conus candidus Born, 1778) ee 2 ie ace a » oo ) PEO 758 (Diplectrona Westwood, 1839) vad a fs ee ad. UDO 759 (Sceloporus torquatus Wiegmann, 1828) ... oe ate ast SEO 760 (Macropus Shaw, 1790) he Sa: a es ad See eee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 363 INDEX TO KEY NAMES Page Acanthochila Merch, 1868 ... ses a Ps: aif a ie wh 51 acus, Sphyraena, Lacépéde, 1803... er ay ae ~~ se sa(326 Adelges Vallot, 1836 ... nae ae, ie Ne oe aes ace ey 86 Adopaeoides Godman, [1900] es ae +4 oF Sea hs am 73 Aetheius Hiibner, [1819] nad a Bac me aa pe bes nero africanus, Anopheles, Theobald, 1901 ar re noe ae soe sea S24 agilis, Lachnus, Kaltenbach, 1843 ... cor sates a2 = Aes EMeles Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799 ... dhs an wi fe ae ae seen :300 albicans, Planorbis, Pfeiffer, 1839 ... his ee 5B ns At uae 94 aletes, Thracides, Geyer, [1832] a ie a fez ra Za3 eS 78 alni, Chermes, Linnaeus, 1758 Ny re b8 Re ne Se ate 86 Amaurobius Koch, 1837 as ast i cor a Le. 583 140, 216 Amblema Rafinesque, 1820 . Abe 2 aor af ws 196, 341 americanus, Conus ammiralis, ‘Gineiin, 1791 ae aes oe 7 wt 3319 Amplexizaphrentis Vaughan, 1906 ... ee Ae whe ry ate sooo S48 Anaphes Haliday, 1833 she eG seh se ae was od ait 82 anatinus, Mytilus, Linnaeus, 1758 ... a ep en ans a ee ee Ancistrodon Beauvois, 1799 a ff za8 a see oe :i ete A0O andecolus, Planorbis, d’Orbigny, 1835 she ess me wee ah =e 94 angulatus, Naiadites, Dawson, 1860 “ae nee = aa ys a 92 Anthanassa Scudder, 1875... wok re Sa Bn “as BR “cape TOD Anthropopithecus Blainville, 1838... Gs fe Ses — a Ae el We Aphelocheira Stephens, 1836 = sai was re “ae a Sop LEO: aquilina, Hesperia, Plotz, 1883 oF ee aes wis ne me ies 74 archytas, Papilio, Stole, [1787] ges ae See ris Bee o oe OS arenicola, Arizona elegans, Dixon, 1960... ae See noe a as 19 Arisbe Hiibner, [1819] ise wat oa as: sists sin a se 71 Arizona Kennicott, 1859 sor ss out aes os oe he Se 19 armigera, Noctua, Hiibner, [1803- 1308] aie oe Bee ete oe a |! Armigerus Clessin, 1884 a ae er we wa a Ss be 94 artifex, Cardiaspsis, Schwarz, 1898 ss ar Sa se oes dos 40 Artines Godman, [1901] abe vez ae as aes oe = ati 74 Ascoli Guérin-Méneville et al. 5: a a ss oe ie seve aie atropos, Drassus, Walckenaer, 1830 aes ree sick Sa PE 141, 216 aurantii, Coccophagus, Howard, 1894 Rais aS a4 ee aad Mere at auriflamma, Mullus, Forsskal, 1775 ies 3 ses te oe 264, 342 bancrofti, Spondyliaspis, Signoret, 1879... oii ie Be ae vee 40 barbara, Noctua, Fabricius, 1794... ve ic tb ae tar sae OT barberinus, Mullus, Lacépéde, 1802 eat os a des see A, A263 barbouri, Natrix, Taylor, 1922 = oe ae oa ba eA arms 364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature bifasciatus, Mullus, Lacépéde, 1802 bioculata, Ephemera, Linnaeus, 1758 Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 Bironella Theobald, 1905 bironelli, Anopheles, Christophers, 1924 Birostrites Lamarck, 1819 bisoctodentatus, Ctenophthalmus, Kolenati, 1883 . Bomolochus Von Nordmann, 1832 Boriomyia Banks, 1904 BOTHRIOTHORACINI Howard, 1895 bottae, Pleurotoma, Valenciennes, 1839 bowmani, Endothyra, Phillips, [1846] Brachystira Fieber, 1858 brachyurus, Procyon, Wiegmann, 1837 buchi, Orthoceratites, de Verneuil, 1850 buxophilus, Rotylenchus, Golden, 1956 Cacatua Brisson et al. Cadlina Bergh, 1878 . is caecutiens, Tabanus, eikuacue 1758 caeneus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1767 caenius, Charis, Grote & Robinson, 1869 Calamaria Boie, et al. af calamarius, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758 Calephelis Grote & Robinson, 1869 Candacia Dana, 1846 candidus, Conus, Born, 1778 canguru, Mus, Statius Miiller, 1776 capensis, Yerbua, Forster, 1778 caractaci, Calymene blumenbachii var., Salter, 1865 Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 Carcharias Rafinesque et al. carcharias, Squalus, Linnaeus, 1758 CARCHARINIDAE Garman, 1913 Carcharodon Smith, 1838 Cardiaspina Crawford, 1911 cenea, Charis, Seitz, (1917) ... Ceratomya Sandberger, 1864 CERATOMYIDAE Arkell, 1934 Ceratomyopsis Cossmann, 1915 cereus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1768 Chamaemyia Meigen, 1803 ... Page 263 119 94 164 164 357 173 88 224 123 228 37 126 ... 16, 338 43 195, 273 156 51 333 282 282 303 306 282 90 286 292 84 162 32 33 32 33 32 40 282 176 176 176 282 267 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CHAMAEMYIIDAE Hendel, 1910 Chermes Linnaeus, 1758 chiametla, Coluber, Shaw, 1802 Chimpansee Voigt, 1831 Ag chinensis, Ablabes, Giinther, 1889 ... CHRYSOPINAE Schneider, 1851 Chrysops Meigen, 1803 CHRYSOPSINAE Lutz, 1909 Chyromya Robineau- -Desvoidy, 1830. CHYROMYIDAE Hendel, 1916 ... CIMOLESTIDAE Marsh, 1889 ... clavigera, Doris, Miiller, 1776 clavus, Conus, Linnaeus, 1758 Coelotes Blackwall, 1841 coffeae, Conus, Gmelin, 1791 Colaceutes Hartmann, 1856 .. colon, Papilio, Fabricius, 1775 : commersonianus, Stolephorus, [Lacépéde, 1803] commersonii, Stolephorus, Lacépéde, 1803 conoidea, Bulla, Linnaeus, 1767 contortrix, Boa, Linnaeus, 1766 corax, Pithecops hylax, Fruhstorfer, 1919 CORIXIDAE [Leach, 1815] ss coronata, Pelta, Quatrefages, 1844 ... costata. Amblema, Rafinesque, 1820 costatus, Conus, Gmelin, 1791 Crassispira Swainson, 1840 ... Cratena Bergh, 1864 crocodila, Belona, Lesueur, 1821 CTENOPHTHALMINAE Rothschild, 1915 Ctenophthalmus Kolenati, 1856 curvulena, Zaphrentis, Thomson, 1881 cyparissa, Papilio, Cramer, [1775] decipiens, Chaetetes, Rominger, 1866 Diaphoreolis Iredale & O° a 1923 Dicellomus Hall, 1871 : : : Diodontus Curtis, 1834 Dipilidia Matheron, 1842 Diplectrona Westwood, 1839 douglasii, Lepus, Gray, 1837 Dromaius Vieillot, 1816 duryi, Pseudotriton, Weller, 1930 365 Page 267 86 235 230 180 332 332 332 267 267 139 100 226 140 321 58, 296 79 218 218 202 301 209 169 49 366 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Echinochila Merch, 1869 elegans, Arizona, Kennicott, 1859 ... elegans, Chamaemya, Panzer, [1806-1809] elegans, Coluber, Shaw, 1802 Endothyra Phillips, [1846] episcopalis, Voluta, Linnaeus, 1758 Erbula Stal, 1873 Eretmia Gosse, 1886 Eubranchus Forbes, 1838 eucalypti, Psylla, Dobson, 1851 eucharila, Cremna, Bates, 1867 Eucidaris Pomel, 1883; Doderlein, 1887 Eucypris Vavra, 1891 Eulachnus del Guercio, 1909... Euphaedra Hiibner, [1819] Euphonia Desmarest, 1806 excentrica, Isocardia, Roemer, 1836 __...... fasiculata, Doris, Miller, 1776 Faviphyllum Hall, 1852 : felix, Diplectrona, MacLachlan, 1878 femurrubrum, Acrydium, De Geer, 1773 ferox, Caracharias, Risso, 1826 fidelis, Hemerobius, Banks, 1897 flava, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 flavilabris, Aphalara, Froggatt, 1903 flavolineatus, Mullus, Lacépéde, 1802 fleuriausi, Radiolites, d’ Orbigny, 1842 Flexicalymene Shirley, 1936... a fonscolombei, Melissodes, Romand, 1841 ... forbesii, Orbicula, Davidson, 1848 ... frondosa, Monticulipora, dOrbigny, 1850 . fusca, Phryganea, Linnaeus, 1758 fuscata, Ephemera, Linnaeus, 1761 .. Gari Schumacher, 1817 Gegenes Hiibner, [1819] giganteus, Jaculus, Erxleben, 1777 ... giganteus, Macropus, Shaw, 1790 glaucus, Squalus, Linnaeus, 1758 Glycaspis Taylor, 1960 Gonophlebia Felder, 1870 OCt Mires ad Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Sracilis, Bironella, Theobald, 1905 ... gracilis, Clupea, Schlegel, 1846 = &ryphus, Terebratulites, Schlotheim, 1820 ... &uineensis, Conus ammiralis, Gmelin, 1791 Halpe Moore, 1878 i hastatus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1803 ... haugi, Storthingocrinus, Oehlert, 1896 helvetica, Ceromyopsis, de Loriol, 1897 Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879 hortorum, Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758 houttuyni, Esox, Walbaum, 1792 Hiibner’s 1808 work Ses huebneri, Ypthima, Kirby, 1871 Aylambates Duméril, 1853 hylax, Pithecops, Horsfield, [1828] ... Tfionyx Kroyer, 1846 ... dee illana, Pieris, C. & R. FELDER, 1862 imperialis, Esox, Rafinesque, 1810 ... infirma, Anthomyia, Meigen, 1826 .. integra, Pamphila, Mabille, 1891 Jaculus Erxleben, 1777 Jaculus, Mus, Linnaeus, 1758 Japonica, Atherina, Houttuyn, 1782 Japonicus, Engraulis, Schlegel, 1846 Jebus, Hesperia, Plotz, 1882 Jeffersonii, Meles, Harlan, 1825 Jerboa Zimmermann, 1777 Jodamia Defrance, 1822 Jovellania Bayle, 1879 kangaru, Yerbua, Forster, 1778 Kassina Girard, 1853 kirbyi, Pentila, Aurivillius, 1895 labiatus, Storthingocrinus, Schmidt, 1932 lacinulata, Doris, Miiller, 1776 laevis, Doris, Linnaeus, 1767 laricis, Adelges, Vallot, 1836 . 137, 154, 341 367 Page 164 218 314 320 76 24 45 176 113 53, 280 325 66 S17, 69, 209 90 72 326 110 368 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page leniusculus, Astacus, Dana, 1852... ids ad na Yn nae roe SSI leonidas, Papilio, Fabricius, 1793... Sis axe os os a Fes 72 Lephelisca Barnes & Lindsey, 1922 sa na ae Bae BY: een 282 leprieuri, Melissodes, Blanchard, 1849 ae a a Ab as ohn 9220 Leprota Melichar, 1912 sta o ee aoe ase Sor se sate oe Leptocorisa Latreille, 1829 ... oat aie ae au as sae is GRBs leucopus, Acanthomys, Gray, 1867 ... om one =a re ae nae 50 Leuctra Stephens, 1835 a $08 aus OBL xfs a se say el O8 LEUCTRIDAE Klapalek, 1905 as ne ie es a = seonrmelOd Limacia Miiller, 1781 Be yee as bee ae re ast 2234, W108 linnaei, Calamaria, Schlegel, 1837 ... ae Bee fh. as dee aseyty too lintingensis, Papilio, Osbeck, 1765 seis sae abn ast eta sore MAS longimanus, Squalus (Carcharias), Poey, 1861 us ae ae oe Pat 33 lumbricoidea, Calamaria, Boie, 1827 ¥e oer so oie ne cates lutescens, Triturus, Rafinesque, 1832 Bae ec ae Se wrath selon luteus, Synaptiphilus, Canu & Cuénot, 1892 noe 1: bag ced 59, 296 Macropus, Shaw, 1790 oa ios as ae ee make sae Pay eh ean maculata, Calamaria, Schlegel, 1837 ARG Bs i Hee Be 80 ne 10 major, Macropus, Shaw, 1800 cn ON ae ae ae me deat qe DOD Mancinella, Link, 1807 oa ie Lae nea sae ha seid woe, 46 mancinella, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758 os ay a te ae boo he M46 marinus, Esox, Walbaum, 1792 rise 2 ae ae See veer ee Maris rubri, Esox belone var., Bloch & Sehasidas 1801 ae aan wom S26 medusa, Conus betulinus, Gmelin, 1791... < ee ree au, ee eel melanocercus, Drymarchon corais, Smith, 1941... are we ae ... 184 Melanoplus Stal, 1873 jet ae sm bce wer LOS melanopterus, Carcharias, Quoy & Gaecara 1824. tte ee an aes 32 melanurus, Spilotes, Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 ... sae act ... 184 melichari, Leprota, Fennah, 1963... are Re Se a ate seek ee Melissodes Latreille, 1829... aie ate ae Ba ea ees wer 220 merceyi, Cidaris, Cotteau, 1862 BA we eo sas “au oe ics & oo mesocastanus, Cryptus, Tschek, 1870 oe ax a “ae aes pes): metularia, Cidarites, Lamarck, 1816 ee ane He ae ae sos. (2 Micronecta Kirkaldy, 1897 ... fe gee ee oA ae eee oe eal6d MICRONECTINAE Jaczewski, 1924... ses Eu es 24 b were 2) a minimus, Conus, Linnaeus, 1758 _... Bc oat nae es us si\—/226 ? minutissima, Notonecta, Linnaeus, 1758... s tbe oe Bo .- 169 3 iriaba Aes Aa AAS 8 Foden Sat eat) ler kl EAs y +’ andy. Aish, et ec * Tne air hat DIO Bee eg ee eee ES Sa Sere : miser, Eulophus, Nees, 1834 .. ng Ue. Le i St ah dey 26 mitra, Voluta, Linnaeus, 1758 or 4 . ah ae ig oe 355 monographus, Bostrichus, Fabricius, 1792 . Bs a) I as $5000 269 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 369 Page Monopsyllus Kolenati, 1857 ... Fe A: be re 25 ane sca ih2Z50 montanus, Meles, Richardson, 1829 ae eg si ni sh £5396 moorei, Halpe, Watson, 1893 a vf was or ia ask wt 716 morio, Voluta, Linnaeus, 1767 ae i se ae ee zt i. .eeell9d mucronatus, Belemnites, Link, 1807 Sac — a L it 138, 343 Mulloidichthys Whitley, 1929 ae fac ae nis “ed oe cree 263: multipunctata, Calamaria, Boie, 1827 cn =e as oie bis sarue309 Mymar, Curtis, 1829... vc hss aa cae ae oe site Bs 82 MYMARIDAE Haliday, 1839... oa Sis ape oe 23; 538 oe 82 Mymarilla Westwood, 1879 ... ade wes BAe sa oat tn; i 82 Najas Hiibner, [1807] See Mes ae ba a oo ae oe LOD Napaea Hiibner, [1819] Pas aE se ra ts ae wes ben 67 niveus, Conus, Gmelin, 1791 os “Ae ee vas 2 hee be eee novaehollandiae, Casuarius, Latham, 1790 ... eh oh es see = 64 nubeculosa, Tipula, Meigen, 1804 ... Joe = ss $e Pit 53, 280 Nupedia Karl, 1930... —.... Auf See aa ee ae Peres |i (0, Nymphidia Boisduval & LeConte, 1833 nae Sa 3 aha ore Pesala’. 72 Nymphidium Boisduval & LeConte, 1833 ... eu sos ae “ee ee ESS oblongior, Terebratula, Beuth, 1776 ee 36 aoe Be es nak: wa. obscurus, Procyon, Wiegmann, 1837 a te be: soe ie % DO. 338 oculata, Vespa, Fabricius, 1781 ae ot Py a des <: tel SG oculatus, Conus, Gmelin, 1791 ee ie: aah Hee a oa sees oe ODONTASPIDIDAE Miiller & Henle, [1839] ... SA ree er ne at 33 Odontaspis Agassiz, 1838... ate sea aE Ey on ae sf 32 Oglobliniella Soyka, 1946... ee See ge ss 4) ees _ 82 olivaceus, Planorbis, Spix, 1827 sor aa es oes th ar a 94 Orbiculoidea d’Orbigny, 1847 ne : nee oi 55: + sa 30 ORBICULOIDEINAE Schuchert & LeVene, 1929 vee are ay eek he 30 oreganus, Astacus, Randall, 1840... oe eae cite ee ats ca DL Ornipholidotos Bethune Baker, 1914 oa Pre eee Pee Sais bee 57 Ortholitha Hiibner, 1825... 5p va ase oF sae i SoS Ourocnemis Baker, 1887 Pn — “ae ae was ihe o52 . Setamad OS ovalis, Naiadites, Dawson, 1860... Be: “68 Bie ee ae PM: 47 pachydactyla, Candace, Dana, 1849 oes aa ane ae re i 90 Pan Oken, 1816 eas ae Mes Ses ae =r a ry vie WO Panthera Oken, 1816... : : 4 23: $ 3 $25 * <3 Sete a =i eee a2 rr 332 res * ei > * ‘ +. ee , th reser tet 3 3 - HH setegscee > : > s*e : o> ' : . ° : 33 : : ; : tf : $i ; seal citaterare: * . - - . 33: ~—- . ret rpiteeess : 33 = Sgastacesesstose : : Vetscsess : : <= + Bee et ry * - —eeee ee on het hn al - = b Betas Sresscrsts 3 Ze sek etetaiies pocszgzscsiess : st rriseatesss +32 ; ie tes Sctess Srerirestetieses > ots 2 : Sarees Setsteisiesetsss gsetiteres - 33333 pSeiteereetens Pitsisty