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