1eg4 oiristye otet poree ae > ob-te be deee dn ehse dedege s+ st at ond hae t eahs heh srabteees Steete naan Set ete fe Ste abe basa seme st sa Ses bese Feiesete rss ssh Siseetsssececiresiese esbrescrestectsecsssran Ssbasssetriedsbtsssstetess Sissies etree Soh ctcresototetebosese! “re pesatseet Hed tte bit terestototite . oot ste! peeSeseses pote cictetescteasheececoctesetesosstote. 35-3: aoe Tiskisk isis sper clotereteretere ese ss Tote eietoleteteteroreic Stes pSteisst se tobehetercbors = *. paectelelel sical Sersisestoritonotse ses oss. Polelety osete -oresere S253 stese3¢ Se5¢ ssasisgesssssets este et spore pehisesitgicatssecsds- slstshotstetetebshcisdstesssctete’ Steet tsestas ei ssotesotetetes: sist tes plier ate eo titebesstetecs cperasoes t3zisis 7S elevetobeletsteteseror— Tesctetete cherst sre ere Pece Se otssertes tates tere eererss 2Teteh, pitolotataiibisiistsetbitetetetie tte etre sapeslt ash sist sesys tit eeet tot let stir ater attest srs TErireczebeteintes ste cestescBrtrscesietescrses Sabitihistpiigne tet ete paris isdyietet: oesrepctitsreri ease Setetoteres sFrlehtieitei stoieieies sieleis siete TESTS Sloe. to tstetssetoee PSPSPS Seat eesesene sess tS stebecctobeleae Stotererset tees ts eS es os eter scsctet Stet rt et Ss. soba Soebtaseasasabeteeiietelerer peeeor steers eres? STt Ste ae Sr $s Soper ereees Si soos berrsetye rec iesiis ile: rigiviislil isis ea aati sa Si Seseseer fe se Sees soretresssesscisasarks poser ste as ts epeessirt Bsdsasic Sesestetsetesshecetese eeerel es. eeterer B80 ot bitst otrsearss FFet- pecrataperss pitirererseses Gebabettetaseeneieeeet Sisptestestersssserery Pe oeres sceasatcears peter ee poets er pees tiste es =: peorirersesrseess Selesatet teeters steeer sets sese4 SSPases ots tsaoes Seat iliritetersperisesesss Sroritesetisssrsssaecss petatsoststeteritetss Ssbsharsesre $3 sipipistescocesarecs Setetédetaieietetetetelbicdticniisbeiiiti sitrssossresses > pecote terse sitet see fare se rifaseretatatatetesies: Peet Peer eseestel oe ere Siete ssaheoti Stitt: Stor terse ress sstesstesss TetetiSciescaceee Sei rk pay eS aT TST FSF ek. ececerers eh oo 25 ssa eT pci ei ete cect tet cese es eles’ ete cepenesespr=tpresetetoscsecehesss SOS SPs Seeeee ress peat te srs: Soe Sis tet Ser sesesess rit pesis sess sebebeteeesbectes. SPTSe Steaess soe eeeress SS Sseeeses aes wept Terese ss essseees ooo3 SSSes terete Pity rr er hs airs eseresss sere SSeS ISI525 ST S8 STS SsogstersrsesotessSearstccsocs: Tibetcloiessieivecs 08 Oe 88 29998 9093896 y ewe vg eta ™ a Pst Paley , ut pig a] A ; | a ae’ s THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 24 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 1967 (All rights reserved) ye € * i ‘ i : * ae : f 4 < y sy ~ ~ @ Le = ss ' y : | ’ ' ‘ ‘ ' ait { ” a ar > ; : a } .. ‘ = + 4 7 ‘ = sh : wet te. . aby 2 . 7 “ly ed] ef dove beak oat inte? 2uteinin’l 7 a yer, wey! i cis wal ai on * - : 4 “J a = 7 igs ‘ 7 a e 7 f es hme lapirget ! te Vaio illness rae SD BI Ue dod ele tvietl Ja tan : Bride cues : , é : , TABLE OF CONTENTS International Trust for 2s Nomenclature—Financial Report for 1965 az of ok Ap a es ay, Opinion 800. Preis Berthold, 1827 (Insecta, Hemiptera): Suppressed under the Ree powers in favour of Leptocorisa Latreille, 1829 Opinion 801. Moehring, 1758, Canaan ee Vogelen: a og under the plenary powers Opinion 802. Laemophloeus immundus Reiter, 1874 Inset, Coleop tera): Suppressed under the plenary powers ... Opinion 803. Anthus roseatus = 1847 ee Validated under the plenary powers ... Opinion 804. Coluber ene ere 1766 (Reptilia): Suppressed under the plenary powers Opinion 805. Rhabdosphaera Haeckel, "1894 (Coccolithophorda): Validated under the plenary powers Opinion 806. Gymnetis MacLeay, 1819 die: Gilecpictay: Desi nation of a type-species under the plenary powers . Bugula Oken, 1815, and Scruparia Oken, 1815 (Polyzoa): hor conservation under the plenary powers. By J. S. Ryland weit) ment of Zoology, University College of Swansea, Wales) The status of certain genus-group names in the Eumenidae eee Vespoidea). By J. van der Vecht (Division of Systematic Zoology of the Leiden Museum, - me iia van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) Strix capensis Daudin, 1800 ne Proposed suppression —e the plenary powers. By P. A. Clancey (Honorary Secretary, South African A eatecimta isda List Committee, Durban Museum, S. Africa) .. Biradiolites omens: 1850, and Durania Douvillé, 1908 (Bivalvia): Proposal to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By Ralph Myers 7 acai of pe asd ge os Texas, Austin, Texas) Orthunga Dohrn, 1859 anes, Hemiptera): Propihed ‘addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By Pedro Wygodzinsky (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) and Roland F. Hussey (University of Florida, Gainsville) ... Ibe bes Proposals for the stabilization of the names of some common European Ophiuroidea. By Ailsa M. Clark (British Museum (Natural History), London) Mer — sa By. re Sex mn ehh Ill 24 27 34 36 39 41 IV Dictyonema flabelliforme (Eichwald, 1840) (Graptolithina): Application for conservation under the plenary powers by designation of a neotype. BY O. M. B. Bulman sheer eiss SRSPIR CaS England) . : : , ‘ ae - Voluta citrina Gmelin, 1791; V. strigosa Gmelin, 1781; V. leucostoma Gmelin, 1791 (Gastropoda): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Walter O. Cernohorsky (Vatukoula, Fiji Islands) pA a on or oy 1 Ps nat Didermocerus Brookes, 1828, v. Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 (Mammalia), and the validity of A Catalogue of the Anatomical and Zoological Museum of Joshua Brookes, 1828. By Patrick J. Boylan Roere upon Hull Museums, High Street, Hull, England) . Tetrameres Creplin, 1846 (Nematoda): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By M. B. Chitwood ie S. wi " ag culture, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) .. RF a ; Sterna tschegrava Lepechin, “* 1770 ’’, and Motacilla pleschanka Lepechin, “© 1770’, v. Sterna caspia Pallas, “ 1770”’, and Motacilla leucomela Pallas, “‘ 1770’, (Aves): Proposed use of the plenary powers to end the conflict created by these names. By G. P. Dementiev and N. A. Gladkov (Zoological Museum of the University, Moscow, U.S.S.R.), A. I. Ivanov and L. A. Portenko (Zoological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad, U.S.S.R.), and Charles Vaurie (The American Museum of Natural ees New York, U.S.A.) : Hcp th : Bi: A Polyxenus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Diplopoda): Proposed validation of emendation from Pollyxenus. By Otto Kraus (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) Notice of vacancies on the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Opinion 807. Stringocephalus Defrance, 1825 aes Validation of emendation from Strygocephale : Opinion 808. Cryptorhynchus Illiger, 1807 (Insecta, rere eer Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 809. Thunnus South, 1845 oe Validated under the meen powers Page 49 53 55 57 60 63 65 81 83 85 Opinion 810. Turritella kanieriensis G. F. Harris, 1897 ane ee Designation of a lectotype under the plenary powers.. ; Opinion 811. Runcina Forbes, 1851 ps Validated under the plenary powers 4 356 _ Opinion 812. Cadlina dae 1878 ess ek Validated under the plenary powers ‘ te Prototomus viverrinus Cope, 1874 (Mammalia): Proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers together with a grant of precedence to PALAEONICTIDAE Over AMBLOCTONIDAE. By Leigh Van Valen (Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) Nematus leachii Dahlbom, 1835 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Robert B. Benson (British Museum (Natural History), London) and H. R. Wong (Forest Entomology Laboratory, Box 6300, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada)... Bicornes Schuchert & LeVene, 1929 (Brachiopoda): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By D. V. Ager (Imperial College of Science & Technology, London) and P. Sartenaer (Institut royal des Sciences naturelles, Brussels, Belgium)... Proposals for stabilization of the names of certain genera and species of Holothurioidea. By A. M. Clark and F. W. E. Rowe (British Museum (Natural History), London) be tp a ae Crioceris Miiller, 1764, and Lema Fabricius, 1798 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed designation of type-species under the plenary powers. By B. J. Selman (University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a apt and R. F. Smith (University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.) ... _ pa Receptaculites Deshayes, 1828 (Receptaculitids): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Matthew H. Nitecki (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605, U.S.A.).. ue oy Cryphalus Erichson, 1836 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Stephen L. Wood (Department of meee & peeks ae sean ks ai on ik Provo, Utah) : ‘ Crobylophorus Kroyer, 1852, and Crobylophorus chimaera Kroyer, 1852 (Cestoda): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By J. van der Land (Rijkmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ee V Page 87 89 91 93 95 96 98 116 119 121 123 VI The identity of the species commonly known as Holothuria monacaria Lesson, 1830. By A. M. Clark and F. W. E. Rowe aie Museum (Natural History), London) so ie : its ie Opinion 813. Faviphyllum rugosum Hall, 1852 (Anthozoa): en of generic and specific names under the plenary powers Opinion 814. Ornipholidotos Bethune Baker, 1914 (Insecta, Lepidop- tera): Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 815. Synaptiphilus Canu & Cuénot, 1892 (Crustacea, Copepoda): Validated under the plenary powers Aes are Opinion 816. Eretmia Gosse, 1886 CN mn Toa under the plenary powers # Acc : Opinion 817. Cancer setiferus Linnaeus, 1767 (Crustacea, Serercae Validation of a neotype under the plenary powers ... Opinion 818. Zorilla1. Soe ee 1826 cough BuEEE? under the plenary powers An appeal for stabilization of certain names in the Protozoan family TETRAHYMENIDAE (Ciliophora, Hymenostomatida), with special reference to the generic name Tetrahymena Furgason, 1940. By John O. Corliss (Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Box 4348, Chicago, Illinois 60680) and Ellsworth C. Dougherty (Department of Nutritional Sciences, Univer- sity of California, Berkeley, California 94720) The homonymy of Papilio aglaja Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Pieridae & Nymphalidae): Request for validation. By C. F. Cowan (Little Gaddesden House, Berkhamsted, Herts., England) Galeopithecus Pallas, 1783 (Mammalia): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Leigh Van Valen (Department of Anatomy, University of Chicago, U.S.A.), Percy M. Butler (Department of Zoology, Royal Holloway College, Englefield Green, Surrey, England), Malcolm C. McKenna, Frederick S. Szalay (Department of Verte- brate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.), Bryan Patterson and Alfred S. Romer (Museum of Com- parative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) ... Opinion 819. Ypthima Hiibner, 1818 (Insecta, Lepidoten) ares nation of a type-species under the plenary powers ... ‘ Opinion 820. Napaea Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera) aes nation of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 821. Taspis Kaye, 1904 (Insecta, iba Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers ; Page 126 143 145 147 149 151 153 155 186 190 210 212 214 Opinion 822. Pithecops Horsfield, [1828] (Insecta, ee) Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 823. Arisbe Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, uence): Benenson of a type-species under the plenary powers ss Opinion 824. Phrissura Butler, 1870 (Insecta, eesti Renee of a type-species under the plenary powers : Opinion 825. Adopaeoides Godman, [1900] (Insecta, aeiida Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 826. Artines Godman, [1901] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): alae tion of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 827. Gegenes Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): = ie tion of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 828. Halpe Moore, 1878 (Insecta, ene! eee of a type-species under the plenary powers ‘ SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1925 (Trilobita): Proposed addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names. By H. K. Erben Unstitut fiir Paldontologie, Universitat, Bonn) and H. B. Whittington (Department of Geology, University of Cambridge(Sedgwick Museum)) Fusulina gracilis Meek, 1864 (Foraminiferida): Proposed invalidation of neotype-material, designation as type-species of Eoparafusulina Coogan, 1960, and related actions. By Edward C. Wilson ial History Museum, San Diego, California) zie : Cyathocrinites Miller, 1821 (Crinoidea): Proposed designation of a type- species under the plenary powers. By N. Gary Lane (Department of Geology, ese aed af. rig agen Los pater. Se citiey 90024, UiS3As) ye: oe a. Polygnathus Hinde, 1879 (Conodonta): Proposed designation of a type- species under the plenary powers. By Gilbert Klapper (Research Center, Pan American Petroleum Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.), Maurits Lindstrém (Geolog.-paldontologisches Institut, Marburg, Germany) and Willi Ziegler (Geologisches Landesamt Nordrhein-Westfalen, Krefeld, Germany) A xe re Polygnathus dubius Hinde, 1879 (Conodonta): Proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. By Klaus J. Miiller (Jnstitute of Paleontology, University of Bonn, Germany) and David L. Clark (Department of tapas University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wiscon- sin, U.S.A.) see ig ae aS . Ke} Vil Page 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 234 237 239 242 Vill O. F. Miiller: Efterretning om ubekiendte Een-QOyer i vore feerske Vande, Kiobenhavnske Efterretninger om lerde Sager. II, Hefte (52), 28 Dec. 1769, etc.: A work proposed for the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. By Ulrik Roen Unstitute of Comparative Anatomy, Kobenhavns Universitet, Univer- sitetsparken 15, Kobenhayn, Denmark) Phryganea maxima Scopoli, 1763 (Insecta, Plecoptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Carlo Consiglio (Zool- ogical Institute of the University of Rome) Myophoria kefersteini (Miinster in Goldfuss, 1837) (Pelecypoda): Pro- posed validation under the plenary powers. By N. Fantini Sestini Unstitute of Palaeontology, University of Milan, Italy) Macaca fuscata (Blyth, 1875): Proposed conservation as the name for the Japanese Macaque (Mammalia). By Jack Fooden (Field Museum of Natural History and Illinois Teachers’ College—South, Chicago) ... wes Request for a Ruling to correct homonymy in names of the family-groups based on Plethodus (Pisces) and Plethodon (Caudata). By Bruce B. Collette (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Ichthyological Laboratory, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.) and David B. Wake (Department of Anatomy, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois)... Charaxes jocaste Butler, 1865 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed suppres- sion under the plenary powers. By V. G. L. van Someren (P.O. Box 24947, Karen, Kenya) Commission Notes Opinion 829. Papias Godman, [1900] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): ne tion of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 830. Phanis Godman, [1900], and Phanes Godman, [1901] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers ae ip as = 550 6 Opinion 831. Telicota Moore, [1881] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Hear tion of a type-species under the plenary powers : Opinion 832. Zenis Godman, [1900] (Insecta, Pepicep ise) Pesienation of a type-species under the plenary powers : Opinion 833. Limacia Miiller, 1781 eee. Rava of a type-species under the plenary powers.. j id Opinion 834. Tipula nubeculosa Meigen, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera Addition to the Official List of Specific Names Page 244 246 248 250 252 255 257 278 280 282 284 286 288 Argynnis chlorodippe Villiers & Guenée, 1835 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) ie aie la Heterotis Ehrenberg, 1829, and Clupisudis Swainson, 1839 (Pisces): Proposal to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By F. d’Aubenton and J. Daget Cie de la Recherche aera et Technique Outre-Mer, Paris)... Terebratulina d’Orbigny, 1847 (Brachiopoda): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By C. H. C. Brunton and L. R. M. Cocks (British Museum (Natural History), London) Proposed suppression under the plenary powers of three species names of Brachiopod erected by Linnaeus. By C. H. C. Brunton and L. R. M. Cocks (British Museum (Natural History), London) Tintinnidium and Leprotintinnus (Order Tintinnida): Proposed designa- tion of type-species under the plenary powers. By Helen Tappan (University of California, Los Angeles, California) and Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr. (Chevron Research Company, La Habra, California) ... Cystidea Barrande, 1868 (Cystoidea): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By C. R. C. Paul Des of spb ag University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.) . : Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed conser- vation by suppression of Pachyrhynchus Wagler, 1822, (Aves, Passeriformes). By Elwood C. Zimmerman (Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii) Lasioptera Meigen, 1818: Application to preserve the generic name in its accustomed meaning (Diptera). By Curtis W. Sabrosky and Raymond J. Gagné (Entomology Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)... Epirhexis Cope, 1866 (Amphibia): Request for suppression under the plenary powers. By John D. Lynch (Museum of Natural fe Pes University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66044, U.S.A.) ach Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa): Proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. By the late H. Dighton Thomas and Anna B. Hastings ik Museum Ae “igi Ys London) ; + fs : * Polanisa Walker, 1875 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By J. T. Wiebes sat astierake van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) IX Page 290 291 294 297 301 304 308 310 313 316 319 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature—Financial Report for 1966 Opinion 835. Melanoplus Stal, 1873, Acrydium femurrubrum de Geer, 1773, and Gryllus sanguinipes Fabricius, 1798 igs ott otek Added to the Official Lists Opinion 836. Leuctra Stephens, 1835 (Insecta, cee re hat of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 837. Nupedia Karl, 1930 (Insecta, ne Shee of a type-species under the plenary powers.. Opinion 838. Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879, and Peronopora Nicholson, 1881, (Bryozoa): Dee ae of Ramat under the rag d powers aia 0 ; be sf : Opinion 839. Anthanassa Scudder, 1875 (Insecta, Te, Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 840. Amblema Rafinesque, 1820 sagas aa van Validated under the plenary powers aA ia is ore Opinion 841. Voluta pertusa Linnaeus, 1758, Voluta morio Linnaeus, 1767, Voluta ruffina Linnaeus, 1767, and Bulla conoidea Linnaeus, 1767: Suppressed under the plenary powers ... Cellaria Ellis & Solander, 1786 (Polyzoa): Its type, and the names of three species. By J. S. Ryland Geiss “a nO gitar College of Swansea, Wales) Elipesurus Schomburgk, 1843 (Pisces): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Mariano N. Castex, S. J. (Colegio maximo de San Jose, San Miguel, (E.G.S.M.), Argentina) Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed designation of type-species under the plenary powers. By H. K. Court and A. S. Menke Reese: of pc kieag Davis, peices: U.S.A.) : As Liphistius Schiodte, 1849 (Araneae): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 02138, U.S.A.) Bollia Jones and Holl, 1886 (Ostracoda): Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Albert L. Guber (The ot ok State University, University Park, Pa., U.S.A.) Page 323 329 331 333 335 337 339 341 344 353 356 359 360 XI Page Index to Authors Scr aoe oe ae oi; oe He wa, 364 List of Decisions in this volume _... aa ws e's SS son 306 Index to Key Names ... oe a sas og mae ae .. = 368 Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published in Volume 23 ae ee Are se ae ae re eee) S50) Corrigenda... or Se ie ne ws wa a seat SO. Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the present volume was published ... nae ae wee ae Se She Instructions to Binders Be ake ons ae ae Ba; eh 2304 “vil ter qe OC iin Scie . mite va shina Jo Wiel Yo teak i te. Pes lay ad ail a5 ag at i > doy HaAheL Gy La eR: wes tt ales Ligf> -si't Ene Volume 24, Part 1 MAR 1967 ; 6th March 1967 pp. 1-64 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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 published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ee nas fs 1 Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 1 (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. 1967 Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Acting President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Secretary: Dr. G. Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (31 May 1960) Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cana (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Lae ror eee (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) uly Dr. Henning LemMcuE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz JAczEwskI1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OBRuCHEV (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) SoS Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March Sue: SOC pea ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) ay 19 Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) (Secretary) Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) (Councillor) Dr. W. E. oe (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Assistant Secretary, Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) r. L. B. Hottrnuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Acting President) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. Carl L. Husss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Rie (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Dr. Curtis W. SaBrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 24, Part 1 (pp. 1-64) 6th March 1967 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 Bugula and Scruparia from Oken, 1815 (Polyzoa). Z.N.(S.) 1390. (2) Grant of availability for certain “section” names of de Saussure (Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1689. (3) Suppression of Strix capensis Daudin, 1800 (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 1692. (4) Validation of Ophiura Lamarck, 1801, with suppression of ten specific names (Ophiuroidea). Z.N.(S.) 1772. (5) Designation of a neotype for Gorgonia flabelliforme Eichwald, 1840 (Graptolithina). Z.N.(S.) 1776. (6) Suppression of Voluta citrina, Voluta strigosa and Voluta leucostoma Gmelin, 1791 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1777. (7) Validation of Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1779. (8) Validation of Tetrameres Creplin, 1846 (Nematoda). Z.N.(S.) 1783. (9) Validation of Sterna tschegrava Lepechin and Motacilla pleschenka Lepechin, ‘‘1770” (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 1784. (10) Validation of emendation to Polyxenus of Pollyxenus Latreille, [1802- 1803] (Diplopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1785. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on February 1967. Zoological Nomenclature 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE GENDER OF NAMES ENDING IN -OPS. Z.N.(S.) 1572 By Afranio do Amaral (Jnstituto Butantan, S. Paulo, Brazil) In a recent note (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 75) on this question Wolk and Eisenmann called to the Commission’s attention the case of the avian genus Rynchops (sic) which Linnaeus scholarly treated as feminine (R. nigra). It is regrettable that their note indirectly revives one of the inadvertent errors that have crept into the Systema Naturae, 1758. Unmindful of the fact that the genus name Linnaeus applied to the skimmers was twice and variously misspelt in that publication as Rhyncops (p. 84) and Rynchops (p. 138), Th. Pennant (in Genera of Birds, 1781) went so far as to fancifully state that the second element of that compound derived from the Greek koptein, thus leaving the first element as Rhyn- (or Ryn- in the second error). However and inasmuch as the stem involved is not Rhyn- (or Ryn-) but Rhynch-, should Pennant’s statement be analysed in the light of the linguistic principles as synthesized in Art. 29a and Art. 29c of the International Code, it would lead to the formation of the meaningless monster Rhynchocops. Fortunately, both of those misspellings were corrected in due time, in the Errata of the Systema Naturae (as iterated, in 1894, in its Appendix, p. 1), to Rhynchops, thus confirming Linnaeus’ natural acumen and academic foundation. Concerning their suggestion for an exception to be included in the Rules for certain cases, I am unable to conceive how it could contribute to stability and universality in Nomenclature, the promotion of which is the very object of the International Code. COMMENT ON COLLETTE AND BERRY’S PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE NOMENCLATURE OF BELONIDAE (FISHES). Z.N.(S.) 1723 (see volume 22, pages 325-329) By Enrico Tortonese (Museum of Natural History, Genoa, Italy) B. B. Collette and F. H. Berry proposed that the name imperialis be suppressed for a species of BELONIDAE living in the Mediterranean and in the tropical Atlantic. Accordingly, the name Tylosurus acus would be used for such a fish. Both the descrip- tions of Sphyraena acus Lacépéde (1803) and Esox imperialis Rafinesque (1810) are obviously poor. However, we cannot doubt the identity of the species observed by Rafinesque near Sicily; the name imperialis was therefore used by many students of the Mediterranean fishes (Moreau, 1881; Vinviguerra, 1885; Carus, 1893; D’Acona, 1931; Tortonese, 1963) and by G. F. Mees in his revision of the Belonidae (Zool. Verhandel., Leiden, No. 54, 1962). According to Collette and Berry we cannot be sure of the identity of imperialis because “* two ” species of Tylosurus are presently known to exist in the Mediterranean. Actually, one only has been found in all basins and is present in the seas surrounding Sicily. The other—T. crocodilus (Pér. Le Sueur)—has only recently been noticed in the Eastern Mediterranean and is one of the fishes which has immigrated from the Red Sea through the Suez Canal—C. George (Amer. Univ. Beirut, Misc. Pap. Nat. Sci., No. 4, 1964, p. 14)—and first captured along the shores of Lebanon. Being sure, therefore, that Rafinesque had just the species that was often named acus, chiefly by the American ichthyologists, it seems necessary to drop the latter name and keep imperialis as the proper name for this species. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 1. March 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL FOR THE CONSERVATION OF PANTHERA AND PAN. Z.N.S.) 482 (see volume 22, pages 230-232) By E. Tortonese (Museum of Natural History, Genoa, Italy) When I read Morrison-Scott’s proposal for the conservation of the names Pan and Panthera, | sent a few words of support, as it seemed advisable to keep such names, now widely employed by both mammalogists and non-mammalogists. Now, I am rather impressed by comments sent by P. Hershkovitz and by F. Dias de Avila-Prires (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 (2/3) : 67-69). It appears that we must first consider not a nomenclatorial problem, but a strictly taxonomic one: are large and small cats congeneric or not? are chimpanzee and gorilla congeneric or not? It is often said that the taxonomy of mammals is now well established and that only the smaller forms require further work. It is therefore surprising that we don’t know the proper scientific name of the lion, or the chimpanzee; as a matter of fact a museum curator or director is still uncertain (1966!) about the labelling of the speci- mens, and the present examples are not alone. Therefore, I consider the opportunity of discussing a nomenclatorial question a doubtful one when the corresponding taxonomic question has not been solved. May I add that, as far as large mammals are concerned, the solution of similar problems is particularly desirable. The present case involves such “ well-known ” animals that a final agreement on their taxonomy can reasonably be expected. Of course, this is a matter for the mammalogists and not for the Commission. The latter can consider later what generic names are to be used, if this remains uncertain. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The finances of the Trust for 1965 show an improvement over the figures for 1964. There is an excess of income over expenditure of £660 compared with an excess of expenditure over income of £870 a true improvement of £1,500 in the year’s working. This result is due to several factors of which the following may be mentioned: Sales of Publications benefited by £400 from the sale of back sets, and Invest- ment Income is £100 more than last year. On the expenditure side administrative costs have not been allowed to rise and the printing bill is less by £400 for the Bulletin. Non-recurrent expenditure in 1964 of nearly £900 for the Code also did not occur this year. Sales of the Bulletin, the main source of revenue to the Trust, remain con- stant and it seems that there is now little scope for a substantial increase in the number of subscribers. The “Official List’”’ suspense account has been quiescent during 1965, but substantial progress has been made with several ‘Lists’ for publication next year. Since there is adequate revenue to meet the cost no account has been taken in the Account for 1965. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 1. March 1967. 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR} Incorporated under the Companies BALANCE SHEET—} 1964 ee esos £ Ss Revenue Reserves— 10,000 General Reserve an ts rie ai ah .. 10,000 0 0 3,211 “Official List’? Suspense Account (per separate account) 3,283 16 8 3,439 Income and Expenditure Account (per separate account) 4,098 10 6 16,650 17,382 7 2 Special Donation unappropriated— 252 Balance at 31st December, 1964 .. aD on ae 25252 8 Current Liabilities— 911 Sundry Creditors .. le ae es es ; 1,029 8 3 340 Subscriptions to Publications received in advance ste 141 6 6 1,251 1,170 14 £18,153 £18,805 4 = a = REPORT qu 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 gives a true and fair view of t! ended on that date. (2) Proper books have been kept and the accounts are in agreement therewith and give, in the prescri Finssury Circus House, BLOMFIELD STREET, Lonpbon, E.C.2. 15th March, 1966 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5 ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Act, 1929 (Limited by Guarantee) 31st December, 1965 1964 £ 5 gd, £ s. d. Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— 877 Book value at Ist July, 1948 and additions since at cost 877 10 6 536 Less Depreciation and amount written off ti 570 10 6 - 307 0 O Investments at cost— 2,079 £2,500 24°% Savings Bonds 1964/67 2,078 10 6 2,249 £2,500 3°% Savings Bonds 1955/65. . ——— 5,689 £6,857 2s 11d British Transport 3 a Stock «1968/73 5,689 6 8 — £2,500 64°% Exchequer Stock 1969 2,248 16 9 10,017 (£10,199) (Market value at date £10,700) 10,016 13 11 3,000 County Borough of Preston Temporary Loan 3,000 0 0 13,017 ————— 13,016 13 11 Current Assets— £ Amounts due for Publications at SS, 300 valuation a ¥ 00 78 Income Tax Recoverable 38,13 3 378 128 13 5 4,417 Balances at Bank and Cash in Hand. . 5,352 16 10 4,795 ——————_ 5,481 10 3 (Note—The Stock of Publications has not been valued) FRANCIS J. GRIFFIN Members of the Committee N,. D. RILEY of Management £18,805 4 2 AUDITORS of the Trust’s affairs at 31st December, 1965 and of the excess of income over expenditure for the year , the information required by the Companies Act, 1948. W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants 6 1964 £ £ 3,668 757 53 4,478 50 4,428 38 880 2,405 3,285 7,751 £7,751 871 3,439 £4,310 1964 £ 50 3,211 £3,261 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Income and Expenditure Account for |}; EXPENDITURE 5 Ste Administration Expenses— Salaries, National Insurance etc. 3,670 16 2 Office Expenses 3 a 848 7 11 Audit Fee ae 52 10 0 4,571 14 1 Less Proportion allocated to ‘Official List” 50 0 0 Depreciation of Office Equipment .. ¢ Printing and Distribution of Publications— International Code na ig ft. — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Balance, being Excess of Income over es san for the year, carried down we ‘ He Balance brought down Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet Proportion of Administration Expenses 3,283 16 £3,333 16 Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 year ended 31st December, 1965 1964 INCOME £ Ges. ds 5s. d Sales of Publications— 916 International Code xe ae =5 oe me 762 4 7 82 Opinions and Declarations . ae wk 5 651 8 8 5,084 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature - sae 5,040 17 8 — Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature 2 at aio 6,082 ——— ———— 6,456 18 5 Donations ic nt ne 55 1317 31 Interest Received on Investments (gross) se Ag me 533-3 4 Interest on Bank Deposit 3 199 10 4 Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O. ee International Union of Biological Sciences .. weit, Set 7,203 15 0 Balance, being Excess of Expenditure over Income for the year, carried down .. tis os suON _— Djjiudp paydoonaT OSLI “JOIMIA Dyjiuad “¢ ES & ; 3 (8 : 20961=) O96T “SstIOD [na] oUON, (L881 ‘S2403S) Sninj1sD snjiydosyjos é snjoiiso snjiydosdpg = (LZ :) LEST ‘SexO1S snjioj1sd 'Z SsuON = SN4DID DPOYDIAT (TL*) €LL1 “OTM Savon *T UOISSIMIWIOD [BUOTVUIO}UT Aepoy, Aq ‘awen [BUIs1IO 0} SWeN UIEpoyy pazrus00oy WOHVUIQUIOD [eUISIIO yoodsoy UII “P2pe2N ToHoW L 182 puaudypijay, JO saedg Jo snjejg [eINjePUSWON UO BuTIeEg 9971 YIM SoweN oyloads ‘TT AIAVL 183 of Zoological Nomenclature in O, Bullet “se” XOPUT TPIOUYO ,, 0} UOTIPpe ‘ AWAUOWOF you jnq Ajolig Jo sesodind 10y ‘sIamogd Aleue|d Jopun ‘uoissoiddng ouON, ouON, . ' SOWBN OIdadg pajoofay pue plfeauy jo xapuy [PIO ,, 0} “Suryjeds siyj ur ‘uonIppy ouON auON auoN aUuON ouON « ' SaWeNY OyIDadg JO SIT [RISO ,, 0} UOHIPPY a’ SaWeNY SYIDedg JO SIT [RIOLYO ,, 0} UONIPPY « ' SQWBNY DYIDEdg JO SIT [BIO ,, 0} UONIPPY suudofiadd "7 j snusofisdd "J 7 (6b *) 9P6T “YOIZoy (ZEST “UsTIe AA) SIO) DuaUdYyDAJay snusofisdd * Ti, susofisdd * Tj, snusofiadd * 7, uaulladnf sdjayouq (8€8T ‘S19qualyq) voozojua wnipiuvjog ELL “JONI Smjjnono npodjoD o uinjnao syayouq DIDAO DIUIOIp SIIDUI] DIUOIND|SvsvT Dpodjoy wnizapupavg Usajmouy uniplubjog DiDpful Duucop Najas puaudyoijay pxnjf paydoonaT ppinyf paydoonaT uauiaavf syayou7q uoozojua biapsing snjjnand ppodjoy (9E =) ELLT IONIAN Mnjnao *1Z (ESE :) TH8t “Urpreing Ao “OZ (IT?) ZE6T “Wore AA Stony) “61 (Dpodjoo api) (Sb :) 6281 ‘euesoT podjoy *g] (681 =) SZ6T “YSOYD Hsaynouy “LT (ESE :) TST “UIpsefng vinyur “oT (8SZ :) OP6T ‘UOsesIN.{ Hajad “Cy (b:) O8LT OIA xn “PT (b :) O8LT “JOIIMIN BPN “ET (bE +) ELLT “IOTININ Hauuodnf *Z] (LE +) SEST ‘B1oque1yy woozojua *{] (8S *) ELLT “JOIN Sujjnond “Oy Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 184 «) "7" 4SIT [RIOWYO ,, 0} UONWIPpe ‘siamog Areua|d Jopun ‘uonepye, ouON ouON, au0N «| ° * XOpuy [RDOWO ,, 0} uoTIppe AwAUOWOH jou 3nq AjJoIIg Jo sasodind 107 *s1omod Aleuag Jopun ‘uorssaiddng «) *” XOPUT [RIOYO ,, 0} UONIPpy SOWPN SgIOad§ Joist TIPIONO ,, 94) 0} UONIppe ‘siaMog Areus[g Jopun ‘uonepye, «. * * XOPuyT [RIOWYO ,, 0} UOTIppe ‘ AuAUOWORL jou 3nq Ajliolig Jo sesodind 30; Le6T YOMT (OE8T “S19quasyq) smusofiadd puaudypajaT, Djnjpd * J, smusofidd *T j, snusofiadd * 7, snusofiadd "J ¢, studofiadd * J. (IT: GIS6T=) IS6E ‘sstI0D (OE8T ‘sJoquoiyq) vjnind puaudyo.ijay (09 : 9098T=) O98T “UIIS (98LT sIomod Areua[g Japun ‘uorssaiddng ‘sayjnyA]) wnjnind wmwojsoopuy ¢, auON Co snusofiadd skaydoonaT uinujaind unipdaydoonaT uinujaind wunipidjoD band ppoyais, undid ppodjoy siusofiaid puioonnj]5 pjniod sdaydoonaT Djnjod ppoysisy, Djjajod ppoyst4T, O€ST ‘SioqueryA suusofiadd “og (68S :) 6681 ‘xnoY wnutund *6z (EOI :) 9881 ‘sexOIS wmusaind +gz (POT :) ZEST Ss9quoryy wand -1z (801 +) 9821 SOMA, wand +97 SINJLID] OY} JO suusofiaid “cz ($6 :) O€8T “S19queryy vynind pz (IST =) 98ZT “IOIMIA ByMIDd -¢z ($6 :) ELLI “JOIN Byard “zz eee — — eee UOISSIUUOD [eUOHeUIE}UT Aq ‘owen [eUIsIO 0} qoodsoy UII ‘PapeenN] UoTOW owen wWIEpoy xAepol, pezrusosay UOHBUIQUIOD [eUISLIO a Duaudypija], JO soisadg JO snjejg [eINje[OUSsWION] UO Sulseeg JOO YIM soMeN] oyISedg “TT ATAVL 185 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ‘uAuouAds Jorunf = s ouON SUON, S88 ‘SOYOIS UnpoUNA] UnIpIdjoD Quon 9881 ‘SAxOIS WnyDI4js WnIpIdjoD (STI: 90961=) O96T ‘SSIIOD (IZ6T SUuON, ‘Ul[IoM) apiduiodajs DuaudyosjaL, a SoweNy oytoadg OE8I Jo SIT [RIOWYO ,, 0} UONIPpy ‘Siaqueliyy supjpyuios vuwoonvyy (€ : S7S61=) ZS6I ‘ssIIOD SuON (9Z61 ‘TUBM) Vid4iso4 DuauUiAYyDAJaT, «| Xopuy [RIOWO,, 0} UONIppe £ AWAUOWOH 30U ng Aylolg JO sasodind oj ‘siomog Areua[g Jaepun ‘uorssaiddng snusofisdd *T j, $snjeys ulejJooun Jo saioads = 4 “wiAuouds Jolunl ajqeqoid = sz ‘saidads sjqeynuopiun = — Dada DIOP ~—- (TRE?) [HRT “ulpreing vasa uinjoouna] unipidjo) (Zp :) S8BT ‘SexOIS Wniwounal unjolals unipidjo (EOL :) 988T ‘SexOIS UadLAIs (LIZ *) aDIAUlOdaJS D]JAULOQUDT IZ6] ‘UlploM anidiuosais (86 :) SUD]JUUIIS DiUuLOIND]H O€ST “‘Sisquoryy sunyruios DIDAISOA DULOIND]| SoA (ISE +) 9Z6T ‘TURN BIv4IS04 uinsdd vpoyri4t (96 :) OFT ‘B19quolyy wnadd :soisads poziusos01 = +, oLE 9g “SE “PE “te .Ce we 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature THE HOMONYMY OF PAPILIO AGLAJA LINNAEUS 1758 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA, PIERIDAE & NYMPHALIDAE): REQUEST FOR VALIDATION. Z.N.(S.) 1791 By C. F. Cowan (Little Gaddesden House, Berkhamsted, Herts., England) The use of the name Papilio aglaja Linnaeus 1758 has been the subject of repeated revision for 200 years and the situation is still most unsatisfactory. This application is submitted in the hope that it may be finally resolved. The history of the case is briefly as follows: 2. Linnaeus, in Systema Naturae edition 10 (1758) gave the name aglaja to two entirely different species in the genus Papilio, No. 44 (p. 465) and No. 140 (p. 481), thus publishing homonyms. Papilio aglaja No. 44 is an oriental Pierid now placed in the genus Delias Hiibner, and the junior primary homonym No. 140 is a Palaearctic Nymphalid. Both are well known in their respective regions. 3. In edition 12 (1767) Linnaeus tried to rectify his error. In this edition the numbers became respectively No. 53 (p. 755) and No. 211 (p. 785). Un- fortunately he gave a new name (pasithoe) to No. 53, the senior, instead of to the junior primary homonym, an action he was not entitled to take under any version of the International Code as it stood until 19601. 4. Because early authors often used 1767 as the starting date for nomen- clature, we often find (e.g. Godart 1819, Encyc. Méthod. 9 : 148, 264) Pieris pasithoe and Argynnis aglaja in use, with no mention of Pieris aglaja in the exhaustive synonymy. But it soon became accepted that 1758 should be the universal starting date. Synonymies were reviewed and Pieris (Delias) aglaja Linnaeus 1758, No. 44 has now been in universal use in all works on oriental insects certainly since 1900 (e.g. for India sens. Jat., Moore 1904, Bingham 1907, Evans 1923, -27, -32, Talbot 1939; for Borneo, Moulton 1914; for Malaya, Corbet & Pendlebury 1932, —56; and for Formosa, Shirdzu 1960; also Fruhstorfer 1910 in Seitz Grschm. Erde 9 : 133, and Talbot in his classic monograph on the genus Delias (1928-37)). 5. For the Nymphalid aglaja, however, usage died hard. The problem was recognised certainly by 1935 when Verity (Entomologist 68 : 189 f.n.) grasped the nettle and said that unless and until the International Commission ruled otherwise, Argynnis (Mesoacidalia) aglaja would have to be replaced as a junior primary homonym by charlotta Haworth 1803. Soon afterwards Hemming 1942 (Proc. R. ent. Soc. (B) 11 : 155 sqq.) discussed the case in detail with the same conclusive result. It is relevant to quote his paragraph 6 here in full. 1 The rule that line and page precedence determined which of names published simul- taneously had priority was in force for only five years—between 1948 (Paris Congress) and 1953 (Copenhagen Congress). The Code made no ruling before 1948 as to the relative priority to be accorded to homonyms published simultaneously, but always ruled (except as noted above) that the relative priority of synonyms published simultaneously shall be deter- mined by the first reviser. (W. E. China). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 3. June 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 ‘**6. The only remaining way by which an attempt might be made to retain the name aglaja Linnaeus for the Nymphalid species would be to invite the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature to render an Opinion, under ‘ Suspension of the Rules’, declaring that this name should be so re- tained, nothwithstanding the fact that it is a homonym. It is important to realise that, although the International Commission have been vested with ‘ plenary powers’ to suspend the rules, those ‘ plenary powers’ were given to the Commission by the International Zoological Congress subject to the condition that they are only to be used in cases where in the judgment of the Commission ‘ the strict application of the rules will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity’. The strict application of the rules in the present case would certainly cause inconvenience through the suppression of a well- known name, but causing inconvenience is a very different thing from causing ‘ greater confusion than uniformity ’ and it would be very difficult to establish a case to show that the latter would arise if the rules were strictly applied and the name Papilio aglaja Linnaeus for the Nymphalid species were sunk as a homonym. Moreover, it should be observed that the International Com- mission have never yet used their ‘ plenary powers’ to validate a homonym, and in view of the express terms of Articles 35 and 36 of the Code and of the importance attached by the Commission to the principle embodied in those Articles an application that involved the suspension of the rules in this manner would need to be extremely strong before the International Commission would be likely to give a favourable response. For these reasons it is most improbable that any application to the International Commission for an Opinion so as to retain the name Papilio aglaja for the Nymphalid species would be successful. At the present time this is a purely academic question since no such application has been made to the Commission. As things stand today the above name is an invalid homonym and as such must be rejected.”” Thus Hemming explained why he did not fight to preserve the name for the Nymphalid. 7. But his arguments surely emphasise that there is an extremely strong case now. Through a change in the Code in 1961 the situation has been completely reversed. Article 24(a) now permits a “ First Reviser’’ to make exactly such a change as Linnaeus tried to make in 1767. There is no time-bar to this Article as there is in certain others, so it has retrospective effect. So now it is the Pierid Papilio (Delias) aglaja Linnaeus 1758 whose well established and widely used name unquestionably needs protection. Whether this be with the simultaneous preservation of, or at the expense of, the Nymphalid name is debatable. In compliance with the former rules a number of authors, e.g. Verity 1950 (Le Farfalle diurne d’Italia 4 : 298), Lempke 1956 (Catalogus der Nederlandse Macrolepidoptera., Suppl. 4—Tijd. Ent. 99 : 173), Bretherton 1966 (Distribution List of Butterflies of W. & S. Europe.—Trans. Soc. Brit. Ent. 17(1) : 29) have discarded it for Mesoacidalia charlotta Haworth. Others have not. Now Higgins 1967 (Entomologist 100 : 20) has pointed out the change in the Rules as it affects the Palaearctic Nymphalid, invalidating Hemming et al., and legalising the laggards. 8. Surely it is most necessary and urgent, in the interests not only of uniformity but also of the repute of the Rules themselves, first to preserve 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Papilio aglaja Linnaeus 1758 No. 44 in its current and long-established usage for the Pierid species, and second to take the necessary consequential action regarding the Nymphalid species. 9. Probably the most universally acceptable course will be, by suspending the law of homonymy for this particular and special case, to preserve the name for both species as from 1758. This could not possibly result in any confusion; the two homonyms have been not only in separate genera but also in different families ever since Papilio was subdivided. Moreover their geographical ranges nowhere overlap. This action would also obviate the undoubted difficulty that charlotta was described by Haworth, for both sexes, as a British species quite separate from the British representatives of the Nymphalid ag/aja, of which it is in fact a most distinctive and scarce aberration. If this course is adopted, Linnaeus’ 1767 revision will be irrelevant, merely making pasithoe a junior synonym for the Pierid ag/aja as it has always been regarded till now. Such action would penalise the law-abiding authors like Verity and Lempke, but they, and more so Bretherton, are already outdated by the 1961 Code. My request below is for the adoption of this course. 10. The Commission may however consider that ag/aja for the Nymphalid species was properly rejected by Hemming in 1942 and should remain so rejected despite contradiction by the new first reviser rule. In this event again, Linnaeus’ 1767 revision would be irrelevant; and Papilio aglaja Linnaeus 1758, Systema Naturae, edn. 10, No. 44 (p. 465) would qualify for the Official List of Specific Names, and Papilio aglaja Linnaeus 1758, Systema Naturae edn. 10, No. 140 (p. 481) for the Official List of Rejected Specific Names. 11. Should however the Commission decide that no action is possible under their plenary powers, then under the current Code Linnaeus’ action as first reviser must be accepted; the Pierid must be known as Papilio (Delias) pasithoe Linnaeus 1767, Systema Naturae edn. 12, No. 53 (p. 755), and the Nymphalid as Papilio (Mesoacidalia) aglaja Linnaeus 1758, Systema Naturae edn. 10, No. 140 (p. 481), both of which names would qualify for the Official List of Specific Names; and Papilio aglaja Linnaeus 1758, Systema Naturae edn. 10, No. 44 (p. 465) for the Official List of Rejected Specific Names. 12. In either case it is considered most desirable that the appropriate names should be placed respectively on the Official Lists, to make it quite clear to authors which names should,and which should not, be employed from now on. 13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is re- quested, for the reasons summarised in paragraph 9 above, to take the following action: (1) to use its plenary powers to suspend Article 53 (Law of Homonymy) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature for the particular and special case of Papilio aglaja Linnaeus 1758, Systema Naturae edn. 10, No. 44 (p. 465) and Papilio aglaja Linnaeus 1758, Systema Naturae edn. 10, No. 140 (p. 481); (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name aglaja Linnaeus 1758 (LEPIDOPTERA, PIERIDAE), as published in the binomen Papilio aglaja Linnaeus 1758, Systema Naturae edn. 10, No. 44 (p. 465); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name aglaja Linnaeus 1758 (LEPIDOPTERA, NYMPHALIDAE), as pub- lished in the binomen Papilio aglaja Linnaeus 1758, Systema Naturae edn. 10, No. 140 (p. 481); (4) to place the specific name pasithoe Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Papilio pasithoe (a junior objective synonym of Papilio aglaja Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature GALEOPITHECUS PALLAS, 1783 (MAMMALIA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1792 By Leigh Van Valen (Department of Anatomy, University of Chicago, U.S.A.) Percy M. Butler (Department of Zoology, Royal Holloway College, Englefield Green, Surrey, England), Malcolm C. McKenna, Frederick S. Szalay (Depart- ment of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.), Bryan Patterson and Alfred S. Romer (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) In 1925 the Commission (Opinion 90) declined to validate the well-known name Galeopithecus, thereby making the name Cynocephalus, for a century the recognized name for the common baboons, the legal name for the colugos. This decision has not found favour among mammalogists and it has not brought stability to the name of the colugos. 2. The following quotations are from the two standard works on general mammalian classification. ‘... This would seem one of the most urgent and obvious cases for overruling priority in favour of common sense... Such decisions cast discredit on the Commission and impede general adoption of the Rules....” (G. G. Simpson, 1945, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 85 : 179). ““ Par une décision des nomenclateurs, le nom générique de Cynocephalus doit s’appliquer aux Galéopithéques et non aux Babouins comme ce fut lusage pendant un siécle et demi! C’est 1a un bel example des absurdités auxquelles peut conduire l’application sans bon sens, sans esprit critique, de la loi de priorité.”” (P. P. Grassé, 1955, Traité de Zoologie, tome XVII, fasc. 2 : 1728). 3. Indeed, a majority of the Commission in 1925 were in favour of validating Galeopithecus, but this was then insufficient to suspend the Rules. Some workers still use the name Galeopithecus in deliberate violation of the Code, and the name Cynocephalus cannot yet, 41 years after Opinion 90, be used in a general context without a strong risk that the subject will be misunderstood as a baboon. 4. The relevant bibliographical data are the following: 1768 Cynocephalus Boddaért, Dierkundig Mengelwork, 2:8; type, Lemur volans Linnaeus. This species is now variously placed in the orders Insectivora or Dermoptera. 1783 Galeopithecus Pallas, Acta Acad. Sci. imp. Petropolitanae, 4 (1780) : 208; type, Lemur volans Linnaeus; 1795 Cynocephalus G. Cuvier and E. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, Magas. Encyclop. 3 : 462; type, Simia cynocephalus Linnaeus, a baboon. 1821 GALEOPITHECIDAE Gray, London Med. Repos., 15 : 300; 1825 CYNOCEPHALINA Gray, Ann. Philos., 26 : 338 (based on Cynocephalus Cuvier and Geoffroy Saint Hilaire). 1908 Galeopterus Thomas, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 1 : 254; type, Galeopithecus temmincki Waterhouse. This genus is sometimes regarded as only subgenerically distinct from Galeopithecus. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 3. June 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191 1908 GALEOPTERIDAE Thomas, ibid. 1945 CYNOCEPHALIDAE Simpson, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 85 : 54 (based on Cynocephalus Boddaért). 5. In the most recent original work on Galeopithecus, D. D. Davis (1962, Bull. nat. Mus. Singapore, 31 : 28) explicitly refused to use the name Cyno- cephalus. A. §. Romer has also used Galeopithecus in the third edition of his Vertebrate Paleontology (Univ. Chicago Press, 1966). Ina revised classification of the Insectivora now in press (Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist.), L. Van Valen also uses Galeopithecus for the reasons set out in this application and in the hope that the Commission will now stabilize the name of the colugos. F. S. Szalay takes the same course in an as yet unpublished doctoral thesis (Columbia University), as does M. C. McKenna in an unpublished classification of the Mammalia. A family name based on Cynocephalus Boddaért was not even used until 1945. Papio is now established and generally recognized as a name for some or all baboons (although author, date, and type-species are disputed). Because of its perennial ambiguity, however, we believe that the name Cyno- cephalus should be suppressed and Galeopithecus thereby validated, 6. We therefore request the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to Suppress the generic name Cynocephalus Boddaért, 1768, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Cynocephalus Boddaért, 1768 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the generic name Galeopithecus Pallas, 1783 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Lemur volans Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (4) to place the specific name volans Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Lemur volans (type-species of Galeopithecus Pallas, 1783) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF CORNUFER UNICOLOR TSCHUDI 1838 (AMPHIBIA). Z.N.(S.) 1749 (see volume 23, pp. 167-168) Philip J. Darlington (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) Robert F. Inger (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Ill., U.S.A.) Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) Ernest E. Williams (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) The frog genus Cornufer is celebrated in the biogeographical literature. The presence of an endemic species of frogs of this genus on the Fiji Islands and of other endemic species in the Solomons has been cited by many zoogeographers as irrefutable evidence for a land bridge from New Guinea through the Solomons to Fiji. As far as we know, every writer on this subject (most recently Barbour, 1923; Mertens, 1934; Brown and Myers, 1949; Darlington, 1957; Gorham, 1965) has used the name Cornufer Tschudi 1838, even though some herpetologists have also used the name Platymantis Giinther 1858 for some species of this group. The proposal of Zweifel (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 23 : 167) to replace a name, so celebrated in the biological literature, for purely nomenclatural reasons, is not the best possible solution. Zweifel quite correctly asked the Commission to suppress the species unicolor Tschudi 1838 in order to save the validity of the well-known genus Eleuthero- dactylus, but unfortunately he also asked the Commission to suppress the well-known name Cornufer Tschudi. Stability of nomenclature would be served far better if the Commission would suppress all previous type designations for the genus Cornufer Tschudi, and designate a new type-species for this genus. The most suitable species for this purpose is Halophila vitiensis Girard, 1853, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci., Philadelphia, 6 : 423, Ovalau, Fiji. This species will remain in Cornufer, even if a separate genus Platymantis is recognized. Since Zweifel has already asked for suppression of the originally designated type-species of the genus Cornufer, there stands nothing in the way to the designation of vitiensis as the substitute type-species. Accordingly we request the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature to amend the application by Zweifel, as follows: Retain 1b (suppression of unicolor Tschudi), 2 (placing of Eleutherodactylus on the Official List), 3, and 5. But supplement it by these three actions: (6) Suppress all previous type designations for the genus Cornufer by plenary action and designate the species vitiensis Girard 1853, as published by the binomen Halophila vitiensis, as the type of the genus Cornufer Tschudi, (7) place the generic name Cornufer Tschudi 1838 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and (8) place the specific name vitiensis Girard 1853 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. ad By the Nomenclature Committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists The committee unanimously supports this application. Dr. Zweifel has demon- strated a proper case for exercise of the Commission’s plenary powers, where application of the Law of Priority would disturb stability by invalidating the well-known name of a genus that comprises more than 200 species. Suppression of the specific name unicolor can scarcely be justified independently, but since its reference to the genus Eleuthero- dactylus would invalidate an existing name, perhaps it should be permitted to fall with the generic name with which it was originally published. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 3. June 1967. hic Fa "Us ae i 2 \ iQ } T 7 f 7 | INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. (Secretary and Managing Director) The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merten, P.C., C.H. Dr. G. O. Evans Dr. L. B. Holthuis Mr. R. V. Melville Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte B. The Officers of the Trust W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. (Scientific Controller) Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Opinions Opinion 813 (Faviphyllum rugosum Hall, 1852) Opinion 814 (Ornipholidotos Bethune Baker, 1914) Opinion 815 (Synaptiphilus Canu & Cuénot, 1892) Opinion 816 (Eretmia Gosse, 1886) Opinion 817 (Cancer setiferus Linnaeus, 1767) Opinion 818 (Zorilla Geoffroy, 1826) New Cases An appeal for the stabilization of certain names in the Protozoan family TETRAHYMENIDAE (Ciliophora, Hymenostomatida), with special reference to the generic name Tetrahymena Furgason, 1940 (John O. Corliss & Ellsworth C. Dougherty) ae The homonymy of Papilio aglaja ek 1758 ee a a Request for validation (C. F. Cowan) S- Galeopithecus Pallas, 1783 (Mammalia): Proposed validation under the plenary powers (Leigh Van Valen, Percy M. Butler, Malcolm C. McKenna, Frederick S. Szalay, Bryan Patterson & Alfred S. Romer) Page 143 145 147 149 151 153 155 187 190 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Comments Comments on application by V. M. Dirsh regarding the type-species of Patanga Uvarov (K. H. L. Key; D. Keith McE. Kevan; Boris Uvarov; Y. Ramchandra Rao; Curtis W. Sabrosky; Fer Willemse) Comment on the proposed rejection of Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1902 (James A. Peters) . On the proposed designation of neotypes for Anthocoris nigrellus, Anthocoris nigricornis and Lygaeus pygmaeus. (I. M. Kerzhner) Withdrawal of the proposal to suppress Vespertilio subulatus Say under the plenary powers. (Bryan P. Glass) ; Comment on the application to place Fischer’s names “for d’Azara’s s Rodents on the Official List (Curtis W. Sabrosky) vt Comment on the proposed back-dating of Collignoniceras Breistroffer. (Curtis W. Sabrosky) Comments on the proposed suppression of Cornufer Unicolor Tschudi, 1838. (P. J. Darlington, R. F. Inger, E. Mayr and E. E. bi et Nomencl. Comm. Amer. Soc. Ichth. Herpet.) © 1967. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment Page 130 138 138 141 14] 142 192 Volume 24, Part 4 20th September 1967 pp. 193-256, 2 pls. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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 published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. ae An an a aS toe 93 Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases .. >a ee 93 (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. 1967 Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Acting President: Dr. L. B. HoLtHuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Acting Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cxina (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘“‘G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Professor Per BRINcK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz JAczEwsk1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OBRUCHEV (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) Lio Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March eae Heo ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) 3 ay Dr. ane Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Cae) (9 June 1961) (Councillor) Dr. Cuina (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) {Sere oe E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Jnstituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. L. B. Hoxtruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Acting President) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. Carl L. Husps (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Ruwe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Dr. Curtis W. SABRosKy (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 24, Part 4 (pp. 193-256, 2 pls.) 20th September 1967 SUBSCRIPTION TO THE BULLETIN The International Trust, which is responsible for the financial affairs of the Commission and publication of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, has had under consideration the price to be charged for the annual volume. This has been fixed at £15 for some years and it is with particular pleasure that the Committee is now able to announce a substantial reduction to £12 which will become effective with Volume 25, which is due to appear in 1968. The reduction in the subscription price has been made possible by the support received from Libraries, etc., and it is anticipated that the reduced price will be maintained for some years to come. 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 Esox belone var. Maris rubri Bloch & Schneider, 1801 and Esox houttuyni Walbaum, 1792 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1723. (2) Validation of SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1925 (Trilobita). Z.N.(S.) 1789. (3) Designation of a type-species for Cyathocrinites Miller, 1821 (Crinoidea). Z.N.(S.) 1795. (4) EITHER, Designation of a type-species for Polygnathus Hinde, 1879, OR, designation of a neotype for Polygnathus dubius Hinde, 1879 (Conodonta). Z.N.(S.) 1796. (5) Suppression of three editions of a work by O. F. Miiller, first published in 1769. Z.N.(S.) 1797. (6) Suppression of Phryganea maxima Scopoli, 1763 (Insecta, Plecoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1799. (7) Validation of Lyrodon kefersteini Miinster, 1837 (Pelecypoda). Z.N.(S.) 1800. LEM WTR a aa 2 0 SEP i967 ] } 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (8) Validation of Jnuus fuscatus Blyth, 1875 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1802. (9) Validation of PLETHODIDAE Loomis, 1900 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1803. (10) Suppression of Charaxes jocaste Butler, 1865 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1806. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Acting Secretary, London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on July 1967 Zoological Nomenclature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF NEOTYPES FOR FOUR HEMIPTERAN SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 1732 (see volume 23, pages 121-123) By J. Péricart (Montereau, France) Les remarques de M. I. M. Kerzhner, Académie des Sciences, Leningrad, U.R.S.S. attirent de ma part les commentaires suivants: (1) Il faut considérer en effet Lygaeus pygmaeus Fall. et Anthocoris lucorum Fall. comme des synonymes subjectifs et non objectifs, ainsi qu’il résulte de la description de Fallén (1829). La série de la collection Fallén communiquée par le Musée de Lund comprenait ung et une?. Led est étiqueté “* L. lucorum Fall ” (sic) (probablement de la main de Zetterstedt, sec. Dr. Hugo Andersson, in litt.) et porte en outre un label rouge “ Typ”; la 2 ne porte aucun label. L’annulation de cette série typique, qui ne correspond pas a la description de 1829, semble nécessaire. Il n’existe au Musée de Lund ni ailleurs aucun type de L. pyg- maeus Fall.; la désignation d’un néotype pour cette espéce mal définie par rapport aux espéces voisines sera ultérieurement utile. (2) Reuter a certainement misidentifié Anthocoris nigrellus Zett. et Antho- coris nigricornis Zett.; la solution proposée par M. Kerzhner pour résoudre les problémes de nomenclature correspondant 4a I’actuel genre Elatophilus Reuter a pour inconvénient de modifier des noms en usage dans toutes les Faunes d’Hétéroptéres européens parues depuis 80 ans; l’annulation des types de Zetterstedt concernés sauvegarderait la stabilité de la nomenclature. (3) Compte tenu de ces remarques, je maintiens toutes les demandes expri- mées dans ma requeste Z.N.(S.) 1732. By R. C. Froeschner (Smithsonian Institution); J. L. Herring (U. S. Department of Agriculture) We agree with Dr. Péricart’s expressed desire to have continued the eighty years usage based on Reuter’s 1884 Monograph. We disagree with his concern about the specimens now in the Zetterstedt collection and his conclusion that Reuter may have misidentified Zetterstedt’s and Fallén’s species. Reuter’s 1871 (Ofv. Vet. Akad. Forh. 3 : 403-429) paper was not mentioned by Mr. Pericart. It has bearing on this problem. In it (p. 403) Reuter thanked -Zetterstedt and Stal for permitting him to examine materials of the Antho- coridae. No record is given for the deposit of these individual specimens examined by Reuter; they may have been kept by Reuter. Be that as it may, he clearly diagnosed and redefined the species (pp. 417-419). These concepts are the same ones he used in his 1884 Monograph. In the latter paper he also fully diagnosed as separate species all the other names mentioned in the second paragraph of Dr. Péricart’s appeal. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Long use of Reuter’s works reveals him to be a meticulously careful worker. His 1884 Monograph is just one example of the permanency of his results— eighty years later it is still a clear-cut, definitive landmark. To accuse him of confusing so many forms so badly, even to not recognizing his own well-defined genus Acompocoris, is not logical. It is more logical to doubt the results of the unknown hands which subsequently manipulated the Zetterstedt collection. Preparatorial help of unknown competency could simply have matched specimen labels with the printed record without consideration of the diagnostic characteris- tics. The proven prudence of Reuter’s work habits, the unknown handling of the collection subsequent to Zetterstedt’s time, and the fact that Reuter received study material from Zetterstedt himself, combine to mitigate against assuming a Reuter error. The only conclusions we can reach are: (1) the so-called “* syntypes ” in the Lund collection should be considered mislabelled or misidentified; (2) the specimens examined by Reuter apparently have been overlooked or lost; and (3) that if neotypes are needed, they should be selected from Reuter’s material to insure continuity of the eighty years usage based on his 1884 Monograph. FURTHER COMMENTS ON SUPPRESSION OF SOME NAMES IN THE FAMILY BELONIDAE (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1723 (see volume 22, pages 325-329 and volume 23, pages 149-154) By Bruce B. Collette (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Ichthyological Laboratory, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Additional comments are presented on several needlefish names that recently have been discussed in the Bulletin (Collette and Berry, 1966; Mees, 1966; Tortonese, 1967) and elsewhere (Mees, 1962, 1964; Collette and Berry, 1965) so that the Commission can have ali the relevant material upon which to base its decision. Collette and Berry (1965) requested suppression of three names as nomina oblita under the provisions of Article 23 b. If action under the provisions of the 50-year rule is suspended, I believe it necessary to ask the Commission to suppress two names under the plenary powers. At least two of the names under discussion (marina and crocodilus) are of importance to parasitologists (working with copepods, trematodes, and cestodes) as well as to ichthyologists. The nomenclature of this family should be stabilized before completing manuscripts for an Atlantide Report (Collette and Parin, MS) and for “ Fishes of the Western North Atlantic ’’ (Collette MS). A summary of my opinions on the names for three species discussed by Collette and Berry (1966) and that for an additional species by Mees (1966) follows. I. Strongylura marina (Walbaum) Because it did not seem reasonable that a name totally unused for the 170 years after its description should replace the name usually used for the commonest species of western Atlantic needlefish, Collette and Berry (1966) applied to the Commission to suppress houttuyni in favour of marina, two names pertaining to the same species and described on the same page by Walbaum in 1792. The name marina is not only the name used by ichthyologists but is also the name used by parasitologists, for example by Linton in a series of papers on cestodes and trematodes from 1901 to 1940. Mees (1962) chose to ignore both provisions of Recommendation 24A—to “ select the name that will best insure stability and universality of nomenclature ”’ or, if neither name has this advantage, to “‘ select the name that has precedence of position in the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197 work in question”. In defence of his selection of houttuyni over marina as “ first reviser ”’, Mees (1966) referred to the name Esox timucu Walbaum as another name commonly used in the western Atlantic and to the name Belone senegalensis Valen- ciennes, 1846 as being the name commonly used for houttuyni in the eastern Atlantic. Both the eastern Atlantic §. senegalensis and the Caribbean species known as S. timucu are valid species. S. marina has only the right gonad developed while both S. senegalensis and S. timucu have the usual pair of gonads. The three species also differ in other characters, such as the number of predorsal scales (Collette and Parin, MS): 110-130, mean 122 in SS. senegalensis; 129-185, mean 156 in S. timucu; and 213-304, mean 255 in S. marina. Il. Platybelone argalus (LeSueur) The three main points made by Collette and Berry (1965) were: (1) the name argalus LeSueur, 1821 is the earliest name for this particular species; (2) the figure in the original description is clearly this species and could not be any other species, and (3) after Fowler (1919 and 1930) pointed out its applicability to the species, the name argalus has appeared several times in the literature. This is true both in the western Atlantic (e.g., Fowler, 1941 ; Berry and Rivas, 1962; Cervigon, 1966) and in the eastern Atlantic (e.g. Fowler, 1963; Postel, 1959; 1960; Blache, 1962). In addition, Parin (1967) has recently used argalus in the western Pacific and Indian oceans. Mees (1962, 1966) considered argalus to be a composite partly because the fin ray counts of D 16, A 19 given in the original description are rather high; however, I have examined two specimens with these counts. The problem involving the name argalus is thus a biological one; Mees considers the name a composite and I believe it is applicable to the species in question. Therefore the Commission should leave the question of which name to use for this species to ichthyologists. Il. Tylosurus crocodilus (Peron and LeSueur) Collette and Berry (1966) applied to the Commission to suppress Esox belone Var. Maris rubri Bloch and Schneider, 1801 because this name had not been used in the more than 160 years after its original description (except for a mention of it by Valenciennes in 1846 in his account of Belone crocodilus in Histoire Naturelle des Poissons). The use of Belona crocodila Peron and LeSueur, 1821 was recommended because it is the next oldest available name and it has had extensive use in the literature. Mees (1962 : 45) wrote that ‘* This does not mean, however, that I agree with Weber + de Beaufort and with all other modern authors, that now Belone crocodila LeSueur (1821) becomes the oldest name available for the species...” (emphasis added). Not only has the name crocodila had wide usage in the Indo- acific, as Collette and this lends further weight to the desirability of rejecting maris rubri. Furthermore, Parin (1967) has just shown that two species are involved under Mees’ Belone maris IV. Tylosurus acus (Lacépéde) The two reasons Collette and Berry (1966) gave for advocating the use of the name Sphyraena acus Lacépéde, 1803, for the Atlantic species of Tylosurus with a the earliest name applicable to the species; and (2) it is the name most often used in the western Atlantic. Mees (1966) pointed out that the trivial name acus has been used for two different species of needlefishes in the eastern Atlantic: Belone acus 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Risso, 1826 (a junior synonym of Esox belone Linnaeus) and Sphyraena acus Lacépéde, 1803. Mees stated that the use of acus Lacépéde would lead to confusion in the European literature. This confusion only would result if other workers accept Mees’ lumping of Strongylura, Tylosurus, and five other genera that I consider valid with Belone (compare Mees, 1962, 1964 with Collette and Berry, 1965 and with Collette, 1966). The name acus Lacépéde has frequently been used for this species of Tylosurus (sometimes as Strongylura) in the eastern Atlantic (e.g., Regan, 1911; Fowler, 1936; Tortonese, 1938; Lozano Rey, 1947; Ben-Tuvia, 1953; Postel, 1959, 1960; Blache, 1962) and recently by Parin (1967) in the western Pacific and Indian oceans. Moreover, acus Risso, 1826 was permanently taken out of consideration when it was replaced by gracilis Lowe, 1839. Mees (1966) further argued for imperialis Rafinesque, 1810 by referring to Lozano Rey (1947 : 603) who gave the Spanish vernacular name as ajuja imperial but Mees neglected to mention that Lozano Rey used Strongylura acus as the scientific name of the species and listed imperialis as a junior synonym. I believe the Commission should follow the law of priority in this case and reject Mees’ request. In conclusion, I believe the International Commission should reject previous requests on needlefish names except as follows: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of priority but not for those of homonymy the following names: (a) Maris rubri Bloch and Schneider, 1801, as published in the trinomen Esox belone Var. Maris rubri; (b) houttuyni Walbaum, 1792, as published in the binomen Esox Houttuyni; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) marina Walbaum, 1792, as published in the binomen Esox marinus; (b) crocodila Peron and LeSueur in LeSueur, 1821, as published in the binomen Belona crocodila; (3) to place the following names on the Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) Maris rubri Bloch and Schneider, 1801, as suppressed under (1) (a); (b) Houttuyni Walbaum, 1792, as suppressed under (1) (b). LITERATURE CITED Ben-TuviA, A. 1953. Mediterranean fishes of Israel. Jsrael Sea Fish. Res. Sta. Bull. 8 : 1-40 Berry, F. H., and Rivas, L.R. 1962. Data on six species of needlefishes (Belonidae) from the western Atlantic. Copeia, 1962 (1) : 152-160 BLACHE, J. 1962. Liste des poissons signales dans |’Atlantique tropico-oriental sud—du Cap des Palmes (4° Lat. N) 4 Mossamédes (15° Lat. S) (Province Guinéo-Equatoriale). Tray. Cent. Oceanogr. Point-Noire 2 : 13-102 CADENAT, J. 1950. Poissons de mer du Sénégal. Inst. Frang. Afr. Noire, Dakar, 345 pp. — 1960. Notes d’ichtyologie ouest-africaine. XXX.—Poissons de mer ouest- africains observés du Sénégal au Cameroun et plus spécialement au large des cétes de Sierra Leone et du Ghana. Buil. Inst. France. Afr. Noire 22A (4): 1358-1420 Capart, A. 1953. Quelques copépodes parasites de poissons marins de la région de Dakar. Bull. Inst. Frang. Afr. Noire 15 (2) : 647-671 —— 1959. Copépodes parasites. Expéd. Oceanogr. Belge Eaux Cot. Afr. Atlan. Sud (1948-1949). Inst. Roy. Sci. Nat. Belge 3 (5) : 55-126 CERVIGON, M. 1966. Los peces marinas de Venezuela. Fund. La Salle Cien. Nat., vol. 1, 436 pp. CoLieTTE, B. B. 1966. Belonion, a new genus of fresh-water needlefishes from South America. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. Novitates No. 2274, 22 pp. Co.LieTTe, B. B., and Berry, F. H. 1965. Recent studies on the needlefishes (Belonidae) : An evaluation. Copeia 1965 (3) : 386-392 — 1966. Proposed suppression of three nomina oblita in the family Belonidae (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1723. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 (5/6) : 325-329 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199 CoLLIGNON, J., RossiGNot, M., and Roux, Ch. 1957. Mollusques, crustacés, poissons marins des cétes d’A.E.F. en collection au Centre d’Océanographie de l'Institut d’Etudes Centrafricaines de Point-Noire. Office Rech. Sci. Tech. Outre-Mer., Paris, 369 pp. DELAMARE-DEBOUTTEVILLE, CL., and Nunes-Ruivo, L. P. 1954. Parasites de poissons de mer ouest-africains récoltés par M. J. Cadenat. II. Copépodes (Ite note), genres Lernanthropus, Sagum, Paeon, Pennella. Bull. Inst. Franc. Afr. Noire 16A (1-2) : 139-166 Fowter, H. W. 1919. Notes on tropical American fishes. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 71 : 128-155 — 1930. The fishes obtained by Mr. James Bond at Grenada, British West Indies, in 1929. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 82 : 269-277 — 1936. The marine fishes of West Africa (based on the collection of the American Museum Congo Expedition, 1909-1915). Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 70, pt. 1 : 605 pp. — 1941. A list of fishes known from the coast of Brazil. Arquiv. Zool., Estado Sado Paulo 3 (6) : 115-184 Linton, E. 1901. Fish parasites collected at Woods Hole in 1898. Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. 19 : 267-304 — 1940. Trematodes from fishes mainly from the Woods Hole region, Massa- chusetts. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 88 : 1-172 Lozano Rey, L. 1947. Peces ganoideos y fisostomos. Mem. R. Acad. Cien. Exac., Fis., Nat. Madrid 11 : 1-839 Megs, G. F. 1962. A preliminary revision of the Belonidae. Zool. Verhand. No. 54, 96 pp. — 1964. Further revisional notes on the Belonidae. Zool. Meded. 39 : 311-326 — 1966. Comment on the proposed suppression of three nomina oblita in the family Belonidae (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1723. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 (4) : 149- 154 Parin, N. V. 1967. Review of the marine Belonidae of the western Pacific and Indian oceans. Trudy Inst. Okean. 84 : 3-83 [in Russian] Piciat, N. K. 1961. Copepods parasitic on south Indian fishes. Pt. 1. Caligidae. Bull. Cent. Res. Inst., Univ. Kerala, Trivandrum 8, ser. C : 87-130 Pott, M. 1953. Poissons III. Téléostéens Malacoptérygiens. Expéd. Océan. Belge Eaux Cot. Afr. Atlan. Sud (1948-1949). Inst. Roy. Sci. Nat. Belge 4 (2) : 1-257 PosTEL, E. 1959. Liste commentée des poissons signalés dans |’Atlantique tropico- oriental nord, du Cap Spartel au Cap Roxo, suivie d’un bref apercu sur leur répartition bathymétrique et géographique. Premiére partie. Bull. Soc. Sci. Bretagne 34 (1-2) : 129-170 — 1960. Deuxiéme partie. Ibid. 34 (3-4) : 241-287 REGAN, C. T. 1911. The classification of the teleostean fishes of the order Synentognathi. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (8) 7 : 327-335 TorTONESE, E. 1938. Note di ittiologia. I. Pesci rari o poco noti del golfo di Genova. Bull. Mus. Zool. Anat. Comp. Torino 46, ser. UI. N. 74 : 73-79 — 1967. Comment on Collette and Berry’s proposals concerning the nomen- clature of Belonidae (fishes). Z.N.(S.) 1723. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 (1) : 2. By Frederick H. Berry (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Tropical Atlantic Biological Laboratory, Miami, Florida, 33149, U.S.A.)* The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has been asked to concern itself with the relative status of four pairs of names of four species of Belonidae, for which conflicting opinions exist. The Commission has been asked to officially accept or reject seven of these eight names. * Contribution No. 50, Tropical Atlantic Biological Laboratory, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Miami, Florida 33149, 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Collette and Berry (1965, 1966) considered the proper names to be: (1) Platybelone argalus (described as Belona argala LeSueur, 1821) (2) Strongylura marina (described as Esox marinus Walbaum, 1792) (3) Tylosurus crocodilus (described as Belona crocodila Peron and LeSueur, 1821) (4) Tylosurus acus (described as Sphyraena acus Lacépéde, 1803). For the same four species, in the same respective order, Mees (1962, 1964, 1966) used the names: (1) Belone platyura (described as Belone platyura Bennett, 1832), (2) Belone houttuyni (described as Esox houttuyni Walbaum, 1792), (3) Belone marisrubri (described as [Esox belone] Var. Maris rubri Bloch and Schneider, 1801), (4) Belone imperialis (described as Esox imperialis Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1810). Collette and Berry (1966) petitioned the Commission to reject three names and substitute three others. Our opinion for rejection of two of the names was based on the fact that they were nomina oblita. Because Article 23b of the Code concerning nomina oblita has been or may be suspended, Collette rephrased the request concerning those two names (in a manuscript that I affirm). When Mees resurrected and used the specific names houttuyni of Walbaum and marisrubri of Bloch and Schneider, he did so in specific contradiction of Article 23b of the Code, which stipulates: “ (i) After 1960, a zoologist who discovers such a name is to refer it to the Commission . . .,”’ and “‘ (ii) A nomen oblitum is not to be used unless the Commission so directs.” Mees’ action was also contrary to the intent of the Code—he stated (1966 : 149) that he based his opinion of the correct name of a species “ on the principles of priority and clarity of description.” Collette and Berry’s opinion as to which name to use for a species is based on the two principles: (1) priority and (2) stability of nomenclature (see Preamble to the Code, Articles 75(a), 78(b) (ii), and 79, and Recommendations 24A and 74A). Type specimens apparently do not exist for any of the eight nominal species under discussion. If we follow Recommendation 75A of the Code, it would be difficult to resolve the issue at this time by defining the nominal species through the designation of neotypes. The only method remaining, therefore, for stabilization of these species’ names is for the Commission to decide which names are valid. If the Commission consider the relative status of a name on the basis of clarity of description, conflicting views might be presented ad infinitum. This point is illustrated by the following: (1) After referring to his first, 96-page treatment of the Belonidae as a “* Preliminary Revision,” presented ‘‘ in an incomplete form *’, Mees published a 16-page paper (1964), in which he implied that there was little more to be done in comprehending the taxo- nomy of the Belonidae. Some of his statements were: “‘ Though, inevitably a few problems remain to be solved . . . ’; “‘ The statement that systematically the Belonidae are a well-known group seems justified . . . ’’; “ I believe therefore that the systematic list on p. 325 is almost complete and will undergo only minor changes in future.” These quotations are taken out of context, but I feel that this does not change their basic meaning. Contradictions to this view are apparent. For example, a recent publication by Collette (1966) described a new genus (Belonion) of appreciable phylogenetic signifi- cance, and two new species. (2) Two scientists can interpret the same set of facts relating to genera and species in decidedly different ways. Mees recognized only two genera in the Belonidae— Belone and Potamorrhaphis—and stated (1964 : 312): “ All other genera proposed are one-character genera ...” This statement is obviously a faulty piece of scientific information, based on lack of investigation of the abundant characters of generic significance (according to current thought). On the basis of “ clarity of description ”’, Mees’ selection of proper species names lacks credence because he did not study enough characters in a sufficient number of specimens. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 (3) After implying that almost everything about belonid taxonomy was settled, Mees (1966) presented a lengthy reply—over 3,000 words and 35 references—to the comments of Collette and Berry (1966). Both Collette and I (in press, and herewith) have now spent additional research time replying to his reply. In any action that may be taken on these names, I urge the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to reject the proposal to suppress Belona argala LeSueur, 1821—affirming Belona platyura Bennett, 1832 as its junior synonym—on the principle of priority; (2) to accept Esox marinus Walbaum, 1792—suppressing Esox houttuyni Walbaum, 1792, or declining to act on its status—on the principle of stability of nomen- clature; (3) to accept Belona crocodila Peron and LeSueur, 1821—suppressing ‘‘ [Esox belone] Var. Maris rubri” Bloch and Schneider, 1801—on the principle of stability of nomenclature; (4) to accept Sphyraena acus Lacépéde, 1803—rejecting Esox imperialis Rafinesque- Schmaltz, 1810 or denoting it as a junior synonym—on the principle of priority. REFERENCES Co.teTTeE, B. B. 1966. Belonion, a new genus of fresh-water needlefishes from South America. Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 2274, 22 p. — In press. Further comments on suppression of some names in the family Belonidae (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1723. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 (0) CoLtetTtTeE, B. B. and Berry, F.H. 1965. Recent studies on the needlefishes (Beloni- dae): An evaluation. Copeia, 1965(3) : 386-392. — 1966. Proposed suppression of three nomina oblita in the family Belonidae (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1723. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22(5/6) : 325-329 MEEs, @ F. 1962. A preliminary revision of the Belonidae. Zool. Verhand. no. 54, p. — 1964. Further revisional notes on the Belonidae. Zool. Meded. 39 : 311-326 — 1966. Comment on the proposed suppression of three nomina oblita in the py Belonidae (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1723. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23(4) : 149- 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULING ON THE VALIDITY OF DIDERMOCERUS BROOKES, 1828. Z.N.(S.) 1779 (see present volume, pages 55-56) By D. A. Hooijer (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Having received the application relating to Didermocerus Brookes, 1828, versus Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841, I would like to comment as follows: Unperturbed by Ellerman and Morrison-Scott’s authoritative 1951 Checklist I have consistently if not conforming to the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature used Dicerorhinus for the recent and subfossil Asiatic double-horned rhinoceros as well as for a number of Tertiary and Pleistocene African and Eurasiatic rhinocerotids, and IJ shall continue to do so. My reasons for this will be given. Didermocerus was very nearly exterminated in the literature, and I regret its recent revival. Incidentally, the opinion that the validity of Didermocerus is open to question as it appeared only in a sale catalogue, it should be said, was already voiced by Palmer in 1904 (Index Generum Mammalium. North American Fauna No. 23 : 230). It should be emphasized that the extinct forms that have been placed with remarkable unanimity in Dicerorhinus by palaeomammalogists (including myself) almost certainly represent various shorter and longer lineages, and that none of them apparently is intimately bound up with the extant Dicerorhinus sumatrensis (Fischer) whose pre- Pleistocene ancestry is as yet unknown. These fossil species are important stratigra- phically, and certainly interrelated more closely with each other than with the species of rhinocerotids with which they may be found associated at the Old World Tertiary and later sites that yield them. Among the surviving species of rhinocerotids we do find the greatest dental and skeletal resemblance to these fossil forms in the species Dicerorhinus sumatrensis (Fischer), which may truly be said to represent a Miocene stage in the evolution of the dicerorhine rhinoceroses, and which is denfinitely not the most advanced among the cluster of species in the genus Dicerorhinus as understood by palaeontologists. In palaeontological practice it is convenient to express morphological characteristics and even supposed relationships in the naming of fossils, and the use of the generic name Dicerorhinus, sanctioned by long use among specialists, both for the living and for the extinct forms indicates such a broad morphological similarity. It is to be regretted that in palaeontology the genus is often used too narrowly and practically takes over the function of the species in neontology, whereby its usefulness in indicating close resemblances of certain groups of species within a family is lost. The application of a single generic name, Dicerorhinus, to the living Sumatran as well as to the extinct forms is, therefore, highly recommendable, and should be perpetuated. Now that the Commission has taken the question of the generic name for the two-horned Asiatic rhinoceros to heart we have an excellent opportunity officially to sanction the use of Dicerorhinus if we adopt Alternative B as proposed in the above- cited 1967 application. In conclusion, then, I would recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decide to use its powers to invalidate once and for all Brookes’ 1828 work and the name Didermocerus published therein, and place Dicerorhinus on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203 ANCISTRODON VERSUS AGKISTRODON, Z.N.S.) 671 By Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I have considerable sympathy with the views of Parker (1966, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 300-302). For some years, many zoologists, particularly in North America, have misinterpreted the phrase ‘‘ an error of transcription ” in the old International Rules (official English version), and have changed back to original spellings of names in the sincere (albeit erroneous) belief that they were rigorously following old Article 19 (“ The original orthography of a name is to be preserved...”). They did not realize that the exception “‘ une faute de transcription ” of the definitive French text (Régles, 1905) really meant an error of transliteration, not of copying. A great deal of confu- sion and mixed usage has resulted from the error of translation committed in the original official English version of the Rules. Unlike Parker, however, I do not regard Appendix F of the old Rules as coming under Article 86 of the new Code, which was intended to cover Opinions, i.e., definite decisions ‘‘ taken by the Commission in relation to a particular name or work.” The use of certain names (e.g., Ancistrodon) as examples illustrative of recommendations in that Appendix can scarcely be construed to meet the requirement. Inasmuch as Parker proceeded to request plenary action to restore Ancistrodon, 1 judge that he himself does not feel that his point is strong, although he may merely recognize that opinions will differ and that a concrete decision should be taken to settle the question with finality. His broader criticism, on the new Code’s reversal of the real meaning of the old Rules, is more serious and quite justified, in my view. But the trend away from empha- sis on classical rules has been a strong one in recent years, culminating in Article 32 of the new Code, made retroactive to 1758 by definite decision at the London Congress. Should we attempt to swim against the tide? Should we make exceptions, such as Ancistrodon? Will we thereby open up a whole series of similar applications, which will eventually create a patchwork quilt of nomenclature, and will require boring and unprofitable bookwork on the Commission’s part? Is this the time to take a definite stand on such problems in general, rather than an individual decision re Ancistrodon versus Agkistrodon? I believe that the Commission should advertise the broad question, invite comments, and study the entire problem thoroughly, to determine if an over-all plan should be developed, before it takes action on any single case, even under the plenary powers. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF STRIX CAPENSIS DAUDIN, 1800. Z.N.(S.) 1692 (see volume 24, pages 34-35) By Kenneth C. Parkes (Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) I wish to support the proposal of Clancey that the specific name capensis Daudin, 1800, as published in the combination Strix Bubo capensis, be suppressed in order to conserve for the Grass Owls the almost universally used specific name capensis Smith, 1834. This is clearly a case in which the application of strict priority will upset rather than ensure nomenclatorial stability. I have, in the past, been severely critical of certain proposals to invoke the Plenary Powers to suppress senior names. In these cases, however, the applications were made long after a substantial literature had already appeared using the name sought to be suppressed. Happily, Clancey’s proposal comes before there has been time for many (if any) authors to accede to Mees’ unfortunate (if technically correct) name changes. Stability of usage would have more quickly been established if Dr. Mees himself, once convinced of the availability of Daudin’s little-known name, had proposed its suppres- sion. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dr. Mees mentions one result of the revival of capensis Daudin—the reversion to Strix longimembris Jerdon, 1839 as the oldest specific name for the Grass Owls; this name is based on the Indo-Australian group, and must be used for the African sub- species by those who believe that all of these Grass Owls are conspecific. If considered a separate species, the African Grass Owls take the name punctata Lichtenstein 1854. Mees does vot mention an additional result; the name capensis Daudin must probably be applied to one of the African Eagle Owls. If this name is found to be applicable to the form currently known as Bubo capensis capensis Smith, 1834, there will be no name change, only a change of authorship. However, someone must go to the trouble of deciding exactly which of the African Eagle Owls is Levaillant’s ‘‘ Le Grand Duc”, upon which Daudin based his name; it should be noted that Sharpe (Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., 2, 1875 : 27) called Daudin’s bird ‘‘ this doubtful Cape species.”” Should some scholar decide that Strix Bubo capensis Daudin is applicable to some Eagle Owl other than the one now called capensis Smith, the nomenclatorial chaos ensuing is frightening to contemplate. Clancey’s proposal to suppress Daudin’s name is clearly the logical and desirable means of attaining nomenclatorial stability in these owls. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF STERNA TSCHEGRAVA AND MOTACILLA PLESCHANKA LEPECHIN, “1770”. Z.N.(S.) 1784 (see volume 24, pages 60-62) By Dean Amadon (The American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) I write to urge the Commission not to adopt the proposal of G. P. Dementiey, et al. that it use its plenary powers to establish the names Sterna [= Hydroprogne] tschegrava Lepechin for the bird usually known as the Caspian Tern and Motacilla [=Oenanthe] pleschanka Lepechin for the bird often known as the Pied Wheatear. As I have shown elsewhere (Amadon, 1966, Ibis, 108 : 424-425) and as is well known, Lepechin’s paper is not consistently binominal and hence his names are not available under the Code. The applicants apparently believe that Lepechin’s names can be cited from the (anonymous!) “ Summarium ” at the beginning of the volume, in which they appeared, but the summary of Lepechin’s paper given therein is no more binominal than the paper itself. The earliest valid names for these two birds seem to be Sterna caspia and Motacilla leucomela, respectively, both proposed by Pallas in a paper in the same volume con- taining that of Lepechin. Pallas’ names are given further authentication in the thirteenth edition of the Systema Naturae, 1788, where Gmelin adopted them and placed those of Lepechin in synonymy. Gmelin thus acted as “‘ first reviser.” Vaurie (1966, Ibis, 108 : 633-634) has suggested that the papers in the “1770” volume might have been published separately, though the applicants now admit there is no evidence of this, and that Lepechin’s contribution antedates that of Pallas. Since Lepechin’s paper is non-binominal, this is irrelevant. Actually, as Mr. E. Eisenmann has pointed out to me, there is internal evidence that the volume was published as a whole; at the bottom of each page the first syllable of the following page is given; this is the case even when one passes from the /ast page of one article to the title page of the one following. The question thus becomes—Should the Commission use its plenary powers to reject Pallas’ valid names and to establish Lepechin’s names? This would seem unnecessary. As regards the Caspian Tern, I have pointed out (op. cit.) that Pallas’ name was used exclusively for more than one hundred years after its appearance; and in the ensuing period has been used at least as much as Lepechin’s name. The situation as regards the Pied Wheatear is less compelling. Nevertheless, Pallas’ name was used in about two-thirds of the literature for more than a century after the bird was described; while Lepechin’s name was not used at all, apparently, with the exception of one publication dated 1788. In more recent times Lepechin’s Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 name has come into general but not exclusive use for this bird. Some works, such as the important Handbook of British Birds, continue to use the nomenclaturally correct name Oenanthe leucomela (Pallas). This Pied Wheatear is one of about 18 species of the genus Oenanthe. It is not a species whose name appears often in non-ornithological literature. In the most influential ornithological work to appear in the U.S.S.R. in our times, the Birds of the Soviet Union (1951-1954), of which two of the applicants in this proposal, Dementiev and Gladkov, were editors and contibutors, it is not given species Status, but is treated as a subspecies of Oenanthe hispanica Linnaeus. One assumes that the plenary powers should be invoked only when there is defi- nitely something to be gained by doingso. Inthe present case, if any names were to be “* suppressed ”’, it should probably be those of Lepechin. But since they are invalid any- way, no exercise of plenary power would seem necessary, merely an admonition from the Commission that all authors use the correct names, those of Pallas. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR OPOPSITTA MARSHALLI TREDALE, 1946. Z.N.(S.) 1773 By H. J. deS. Disney (The Australian Museum, Sydney, N.S. W.) It is considered that under Article 75 the author is wrong in proposing to set aside the holotype for a neotype. The type specimens or the original three specimens, although a bit worn, are still valid as types. It is suggested that the correct procedure would be for the author to re-describe the bird fully from his topotypes and state very clearly where they are deposited and, if possible, a specimen or specimens should be where the types are held. If this proposal of the author is accepted it means that all slightly damaged types of birds or insects or any animal can be discarded for more perfect specimens. By I. C. J. Galbraith (British Museum (Natural History), London, England) This proposal is quite unnecessary, and if adopted would set an unfortunate prece- dent. Many, perhaps most, subspecies cannot be differentiated by reference to their holotypes alone. The type specimens are important mainly for establishing specific identity, and the type locality and the characters of the local population are more important for the discrimination of subspecies. Only if the type specimens disagreed with the characters of the population at the type locality would the “ exceptional circumstances ” necessary to the designation of a neotype exist. There is no suggestion that this is true of Opopsitta diophthalma marshalli. In any case, Article 75 makes no provision for the designation of a neotype, where the holotype still exists but is imperfect. WITHDRAWAL OF THE PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS FOR OPOPSITTA MARSHALLI IREDALE, 1946. Z.N.(S.) 1773 (see volume 23, pages 283-284) By Joseph M. Forshaw (Divison of Wildlife Research, C.S.1.R.O., Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) I refer to the above application in which I asked the Commission to use its plenary powers to set aside the holotype of Opopsitta marshalli Iredale, 1946, and recognize a neotype designated by me. The differences between marshalli and Opopsitta dioph- thalma aruensis, with which it had been synonymized by previous authors, were not apparent from examination of the holotype of marshalli as all distinguishing characters had been destroyed by pests. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature After consultation with Mr. E. Eisenmann and Drs. D. Amadon and C. Vaurie I now feel that my proposal is unnecessary as there is no question of the applicability of the name marshalli to the Cape York population of Opopsitta diophthalma. There- fore, I wish to withdraw my application. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207 COMMENT ON PROPOSED NEW TYPE FIXATIONS FOR CRIOCERIS MULLER AND LEMA FABRICIUS. Z.N.(S.) 1786 (see volume 24, pages 116-118) By R. A. Crowson (Zoology Department, University of Glasgow, Scotland) The proposals by Selman and Smith for action by the Commission under plenary powers to fix types for the genera Crioceris Miiller and Lilioceris Reitter seem to me to be eminently reasonable and constructive, and likely to lead to the retention of these names in the sense in which they have generally been used. In the case of Lema Fabricius, however, I fear that the position is rather more complicated. The species which Selman and Smith propose to establish as type of the genus, Chrysomela cyanella Linnaeus, is one which has been subject to a good deal of misidentification in the past. As far as I remember, there is a single specimen standing over this name in the Linnaean collection in London, which is one of the grass-eating species and probably identical with that described as Lema lichenis Voet. In the Fabricius-determined Hunterian collection in the University of Glasgow, the specimen standing over this name is a quite different species, that later named as Lema puncticollis Curtis, which feeds on thistles. In other Fabricius-determined collections, both /ichenis and puncticollis were placed over the name cyanella L., and it seems that the two species may have been regarded as opposite sexes of one. Jacoby, who first cited cyanella L. as the type of Lema, synonymized the name with puncticollis Curtis and treated lichenis as a separate species, as could be seen in the British Museum collection arranged by him. It is not made clear in the paper of Selman and Smith which species they actually regard as the true cyanella L.; if it is lichenis Voet., then Lema will come to denote the grass-eating group for which Heinze proposed the new genus Hapsidolema, and for which Chuje and Kimote have more recently resurrected Des Gozis’ name Oulema. If it is desired to retain a taxon corresponding to the main mass of Lema, excluding the relatively small grass-eating group, then this taxon will presumably have to be called Petauristes Latreille. This seems to me to be an undesirable change, which could be avoided by dropping cyanella as the type of Lema in favour of an unambiguous Fabri- cian species, of which a very suitable one would be L. cyanea Fabricius. It seems to me that such a type designation would involve minimal changes in previous usage. COMMENT ON VOLUTA MITRA. Z.N AS.) 1728 (see volume 22, pages 355-356) By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Entomology Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) There is a third alternative not presented by Coan. One could apply the Rules and adopt Voluta mitra, with episcopalis as a junior synonym. Linnaeus consistently used one type face (roman) for species and another (italics) for varieties, which he sometimes named. It is evident that Linnaeus considered mitra the specific name, with two named varieties, episcopalis and papalis. The numbering of episcopalis instead of mitra was undoubtedly an error, corrected in the 12th edition. If one considers it merely an error, corrected in a later edition, the valid specific name is mitra. Under the well-established principle that the name of the higher taxon takes precedence over the names of its subsidiary taxa, then mitra is the name of choice over episcopalis and papalis. Furthermore, this is clearly the intent of Lin- naeus in 1764 and 1767. In 1764 (Mus. Ulricae: 597), Linnaeus described Voluta mitra, cited for it “* Syst. Nat. 10, p. 732, n. 368 * [the number associated with episco- palis in 1758], and listed under it three of the five references given under episcopalis in 1758. The usage of Dautzenberg and Bouge (1922) and of Dodge (1955) agrees with that of Linnaeus. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature I believe that the treatment of this case should remain consistent with the Code, and that mitra Linnaeus should be adopted as the valid name of the species in prefer- ence to episcopalis. I note also that this would make no difference whatever in the recognition of the genus Mitra. The valid name of the type-species would become Mitra mitra (Linnaeus.) COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF PHELSUMA ORNATUM GRAY, 1825 TO THE OFFICIAL INDEX. Z.N.(S.) 1752 (see volume 23, pages 176-177) The nomenclature committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists unanimously opposes this application. It appears untoward for an author to request the suppression of a valid specific name, with an extant holotype, in favour of his own recently published junior synonym, especially when the holotype of the senior taxon was continually accessible in one of the world’s largest collections. It is axiomatic that even the most capable zoologist occasionally makes a mistake. Such a mistake is not to be interred by exercise of the plenary powers of the Com- mission unless application of the provisions of the Code would disturb stability or universality or cause confusion (Art. 79). This petition demonstrates neither dis- turbance nor confusion, but at most embarrassment of the petitioner. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF HIPPOCAMPUS ERECTUS PERRY, 1810. Z.N.(S.) 1753 (see volume 23, page 178) The nomenclature committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists opposes this application. Ginsburg 1937, (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 83 : 566), commenting that Perry’s descrip- tion of Hippocampus erectus agreed best with that of Hippocampus punctulatus Guiche- not, noted that it agreed fairly well with that of Hippocampus hudsonius De Kay, but possibly represented some other form such as Hippocampus kincaidi Townsend and Barbour. Ginsburg concluded that ‘‘ there is no means now of determining with absolute certainty what erectus actually represents.” Briggs, 1958 (Bull. Florida State Mus. 2(8) : 167) used the name erectus in place of punctulatus. Therefore, if the name erectus is to be suppressed, it would seem that such suppression should be in favo’ r of punctulatus rather than Audsonius. Thus, this application requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to rule, not on a question of nomenclature, but on a question of taxon- omy: the identification of a certain fish from a published description and figure. This the Commission may not properly do. As is stated in the Preamble of the Code (1964 : 3), ““... none [of the provisions of the Code] restricts the freedom of taxo- nomic thought or action.” COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF CELLIA ERRABUNDUS SWELLENGREBEL, 1925. Z.N.(S.) 1760 (see volume 23, pages 190-192) By John E. Scanlon (Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I have been engaged in a study of the genus Anopheles in south-east Asia for approxi- mately four years and agree with the zoological conclusions of the applicants, namely: 1. that errabundus Swellengrebel is not related to Anopheles philippinensis; 2. that errabundus is not part of the Oriental fauna; 3. that errabundus is a senior synonym of Anopheles darlingi Root, 1926. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Patt 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 Examination of the most important present day texts in tropical medicine, public health and malariology readily shows that darlingi is an extremely widely used name, which is familiar to physicians, entomologists and others concerned with public health in the Neotropical Region. As one who is engaged in the training of physicians and entomologists in the field of malaria epidemiology, I feel that great confusion would result from the strict application of the Law of Priority in this case. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF BIRADIOLITES D’ORBIGNY, 1850, AND DURANIA DOUVILLE, 1908. Z.N.(S.) 1765 (see volume 24, pages 36-38) By Myra Keen (Department of Geology, Stanford University, California, U.S.A.) I wish to support the petition by Ralph Myers on placing Biradiolites and Durania on the Official List. After the paper by Coogan had appeared in 1966, interpreting these in a radically different manner, I examined the nomenclatural basis for his decisions and became convinced of the error. Because his paper had wide circulation in a professional journal, it seems desirable that the correct basis for these two generic taxa should be firmly established by such a device as Dr. Myers has proposed. This will be in the interests of nomenclatural stability and in harmony with conventional usage. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF AMPHISBAENA MILDEI PETERS, 1879. Z.N.(S.) 1746 (see volume 23, pages 162-163) The nomenclature committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists unanimously opposes this application. The following alternatives are available under the Code: 1. Selection of a neotype from the original type locality, and use of the name for that population—on the assumption that the original author simply failed to mention the caudal tubercles. 2. Selection of a neotype from one of the populations without caudal tubercles, found near the type locality of A. mildei—thus allocating the name for further use. Either of these Alternatives would contribute to stability quite as well as the action requested of the Commission. This group of lizards is of little significance to biologists outside of taxonomy, and shifts in the names would not be unduly disturbing. Exercise of the plenary powers is authorized only where application of the provisions of the Code would “ disturb stability or universality or cause confusion ” (Art. 79). The petition has not demon- strated that this is such a case. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 819 YPTHIMA HUBNER, 1818 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations for the nominal genus Ypthima Hiibner, 1818, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Ypthima huebneri Kirby, 1871, is hereby desig- nated as type of that genus. (2) The generic name Ypthima Hiibner, 1818 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Ypthima huebneri Kirby, 1871, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1760. (3) The specific name huebneri Kirby, 1871, as published in the binomen Ypthima huebneri (type-species of Ypthima Hiibner, 1818) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2203. (4) The generic name /pthima E. C. Pye, 1873 (an unjustified emendation of Ypthima Hiibner, 1818) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1913. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1672) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 66-67. 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 eight entomo- logical serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 March 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)10 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 66-67. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 14 June 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Boschma, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, do Amaral, Sabrosky, Binder, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Tortonese, Lemche, Munroe, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Evans Negative votes—none (0) Voting Papers not returned—six (6): Brinck, Hubbs, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Ride, Simpson 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: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211 huebneri, Ypthima, Kirby, 1871, Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep.: 95 Ipthima E. C. Pye, 1873, Zool. Record 1871 : 363 footnote Ypthima Hiibner, 1818, Zutr. z. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : 17 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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. 819. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 June 1967 212) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 820 NAPAEA HUBNER, [1819] (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 Napaea Hiibner, [1819], made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Cremna eucharila Bates, 1867, is hereby designated as type of that genus. (2) The generic name Napaea Hiibner, [1819] (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cremna eucharila Bates, 1867, as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Hemming, 1964, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1761. (3) The specific name eucharila Bates, 1867, as published in the binomen Cremna eucharila (type-species of Napaea Hiibner, [1819]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2204. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1673) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 67-68. 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 eight entomo- logical serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 March 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)11 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 67-68. At the close of the pre- scribed voting period on 14 June 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Boschma, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, do Amaral, Sabrosky, Binder, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Tortonese, Lemche, Munroe, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Evans Negative votes—none (0) Voting Papers not returned—six (6): Brinck, Hubbs, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Ride, Simpson ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: eucharila, Cremna, Bates, 1867, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. (3) 5 : 543 Napaea Hiibner, [1819], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [34] Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213 The following is the original reference for the designation of a lectotype for the species concerned in the present Ruling: For Cremna eucharila Bates, 1867: Hemming, 1964, Annot. lep. 1 : 102 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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. 820. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 June 1967 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 821 TASPIS KAYE, 1904 (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 Jaspis Kaye, 1904, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Thecla temesa Hewitson, [1868], is hereby designated as type of that genus. (2) The generic name Jaspis Kaye, 1904 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Thecla temesa Hewitson, [1868], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1762. (3) The specific name temesa Hewitson, [1868], as published in the binomen Thecla temesa (type-species of Iaspis Kaye, 1904) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2205. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1674) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 68-69. 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 eight entomo- logical serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 March 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)12 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 69. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 14 June 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Boschma, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, do Amaral, Sabrosky, Binder, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Tortonese, Lemche, Munroe, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Evans Negative votes—none (0) Voting Papers not returned—six (6): Brinck, Hubbs, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Ride, Simpson ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Taspis Kaye, 1904, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1904 : 196 temesa, Thecla, Hewitson, [1868], Descr. new Spec. Lycaenidae: 1, No. 2 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)12 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 decison so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 821. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 June 1967 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 822 PITHECOPS HORSFIELD, [1828] (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 Pithecops Horsfield, [1828], made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Pithecops corax Fruhstorfer, [1919], is hereby designated as type of that genus. (2) The generic name Pithecops Horsfield, [1828] (gender : masculine) type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Pithecops corax Fruhstorfer, [1919], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1763. (3) The specific name corax Fruhstorfer, [1919], as published in the combina- tion Pithecops hylax corax (type-species of Pithecops Horsfield, [1828]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2206. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1675) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 69-71. 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 publica- tions (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to eight entomo- logical serials. A counter-proposal was submitted by Lt.-Col. C. F. Cowan (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 209-210) who was supported by Dr. L. E. Couchman (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 6-7). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 March 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)13, in Part 1 either for or against the use of the plenary powers in the present case, and in Part 2 for either Alternative A (Hemming proposals, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 71) or for Alterna- tive B (Cowan proposals, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 209-210). At the close of the prescribed voting period on 14 June 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Part 1. Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Boschma, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, do Amaral, Sabrosky, Binder, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Tortonese, Lemche, Munroe, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Evans Negative votes—none (0) Part 2. For Alternative A—one (1): Bonnet Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OAT For Alternative B—eighteen (18): China, Holthuis, Boschma, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Sabrosky, Binder, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Tortonese, Lemche, Munroe, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Evans Voting Papers not returned—six (6): Brinck, Hubbs, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Ride, Simpson ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: corax, Pithecops hylax, Fruhstorfer, [1919], Arch. Naturgesch. 83, Sect. A.1 (1917) : 79 Pithecops Horsfield, [1828], Descr. Cat. lep. Ins. Mus. East India Coy. (1) : 66 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)13 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper as Alternative B 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. 822. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 June 1967 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 823 ARISBE HUBNER, [1819] (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 Arisbe Hiibner, [1819], made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Papilio leonidas Fabricius, 1793, is hereby designated as type of that genus. (2) The generic name Arisbe Hiibner, [1819] (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Papilio leonidas Fabricius, 1793, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoo- logy with the Name Number 1764. (3) The specific name /eonidas Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Papilio leondias (type-species of Arisbe Hiibner, [1819]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2207. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1676) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 71-72. 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 eight entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 March 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)14 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 72. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 14 June 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Boschma, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, do Amaral, Sabrosky, Binder, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Tortonese, Lemche, Munroe, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Evans Negative votes—none (0) Voting Papers not returned—six (6): Brinck, Hubbs, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Ride, Simpson ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Arisbe Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (6) : 89 leonidas, Papilio, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 3 : 35 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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. 823. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 June 1967 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 824 PHRISSURA BUTLER, 1870 (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 Phrissura Butler, 1870, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Pieris illana C. & R. Felder, 1862, is hereby designated as type of that genus. (2) The generic name Phrissura Butler, 1870 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Pieris illana C. & R. Felder, 1862, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1765. (3) The specific name illana C. & R. Felder, 1862, as published in the binomen Pieris illana (type-species of Phrissura Butler, 1870) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2208. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1677) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 72-73. 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 eight entomo- logical serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 March 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)15 either for or against the proposal relating to Phrissura Butler, as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 73. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 14 June 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Boschma, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, do Amaral, Sabrosky, Binder, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Tortonese, Lemche, Munroe, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Evans Negative votes—none (0) Voting Papers not returned—six (6): Brinck, Hubbs, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Ride, Simpson ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 illana, Pieris, C. & R. Felder, 1862, Wien. ent. Monats. 6 : 287 Phrissura Butler, 1870, Cistula ent. 1 : 37, 49 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)15 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. 824. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 June 1967 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 825 ADOPAEOIDES GODMAN, [1900] (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 Adopaeoides Godman, [1900], made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Apaustus prittwitzi Plétz, 1884, is hereby designated as type of that genus. (2) The generic name Adopaeoides Godman, [1900] (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Apaustus prittwitzi Plétz, 1884, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1766. (3) The specific name prittwitzi Plétz, 1884, as published in the binomen Apaustus prittwitzi (type-species of Adopaeoides Godman, [1900]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2209. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1678) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April in 1965 Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 73. 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 publica- tions (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to eight entomo- logical serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 March 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)16 either for or against the proposals relating to Adopaeoides Godman, as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 73. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 14 June 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Boschma, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, do Amaral, Sabrosky, Binder, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Tortonese, Lemche, Munroe, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Evans Negative votes—none (0) Voting Papers not returned—six (6): Brinck, Hubbs, Jaczewski, Obruchevy, Ride, Simpson ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Adopaeoides Godman, [1900], in Godman & Salvin, Biol. centr.-amer., Lep. Rhop. 2 : 470 prittwitzi, Apaustus, Plétz, 1884, Ent. Ztg., Stettin 45 : 165 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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. 825. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : London 23 June 1967 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 826 ARTINES GODMAN, [1901] (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 Artines Godman, [1901], made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Hesperia aquilina Plétz, 1883, is hereby designated as type of that genus. (2) The generic name Artines Godman, [1901] (gender : masculine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Hesperia aquilina Plétz, 1883, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic names in Zoology with the Name Number 1767. (3) The specific name aquilina Plétz, 1883, as published in the binomen Hesperia aquilina (type-species of Artines Godman, [1901]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2210. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1679) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22:74. 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 publica- tions (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21: 184) and to eight entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 March 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)17 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22:74. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 14 June 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Boschma, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet do Amaral, Sabrosky, Binder, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Tortonese, Lemche, Munroe, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Evans Negative votes—none (0) Voting Papers not returned—six (6): Brinck, Hubbs, Jaczewski, Obruchey, Ride, Simpson ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: aquilina, Hesperia, P\6tz, 1883, Ent. Ztg., Stettin 44 : 33 Artines Godman, [1901], in Godman & Salvin, Biol. centr.-amer., Lep. Rhop. 2 : 608 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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 decison so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion 826. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 June 1967 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 827 GEGENES HUBNER, [1819] (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 Gegenes Hiibner, [1819], made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Papilio pumilio Hoffmansegg, 1803, is hereby designated as type of that genus. (2) The generic name Gegenes Hiibner, [1819] (gender : masculine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Papilio pumilio Hoffmansegg, 1803, as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Hemming, 1964, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1768. (3) The specific name pumilio Hoffmansegg, 1803, as published in the bino- men Papilio pumilio (type-species of Gegenes Hiibner, [1819]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2211. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1680) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 74-76. 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 eight entomo- logical serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 March 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)18 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 75-76. At the close of the pre- scribed voting period on 14 June 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Boschma, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, do Amaral, Sabrosky, Binder, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Tortonese, Lemche, Munroe, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Evans Negative votes—none (0) Voting Papers not returned—six (6): Brinck, Hubbs, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Ride, Simpson ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Gegenes Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (7) : 107 pumilio, Papilio, Hoffmansegg, 1803, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 3 : 202 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24. Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 The following is the original reference for the designation of lectotype for the species concerned in the present Ruling: For Papilio pumilio Hoffmansegg, 1803: Hemming, 1964, Annot. lep. 1 : 112 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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. 827. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 June 1967 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 828 HALPE MOORE, 1878 (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 Halpe Moore, 1878, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Halpe moorei Watson, 1893, is hereby designated as type of that genus. (2) The generic name Halpe Moore, 1878 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Halpe moorei Watson, 1893, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1769. (3) The specific name moorei Watson, 1893, as published in the binomen Halpe moorei (type-species of Halpe Moore, 1878) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2212. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1681) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 76-77. 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 eight entomo- logical serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 March 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)19 either for or against the proposals relating to Halpe Moore, as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 77. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 14 June 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Boschma, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, do Amaral, Sabrosky, Binder, Alvarado, Uchida, Stoll, Tortonese, Lemche, Munroe, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Evans Negative votes—none (0) Voting Papers not returned—six (6): Brinck, Hubbs, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Ride, Simpson ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Halpe Moore, 1878, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1878 (3) : 689 moorei, Halpe, Watson, 1893, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1893 : 109 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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 decison so taken, being the decison of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 828. G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 June 1967 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SCUTELLUIDAE RICHTER & RICHTER, 1925 (TRILOBITA): PRO- POSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY GROUP NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1789 By H. K. Erben (Institut fiir Paldontologie, Universitat, Bonn) and H. B. Whittington (Department of Geology, University of Cambridge (Sedgwick Museum)) The object of the present application is to conserve the generally accepted trilobite family group name SCUTELLIDAE in its amended spelling as SCUTEL- LUIDAE (correction by minor change because of junior homonymy). Discussion: 1. The trilobite family consisting of taxa closely related to the genus Scutellum Pusch, 1833, in its present conception, not only embraces the genera characterized by an entire margin of the pygidium as in Scutellum but also taxa with marginal spines as in Scabriscutellum (Thysanopeltis) Hawle & Corda 1847. 2. The first family group names related to this family were published by Hawle & Corda in 1847, who gave the name BRONTEIDES to the non-spinose group characterized by the genus Scutellum Pusch, 1833 (syn. Brontes Goldfuss, 1839) and the name THYSANOPELTIDEs to the spinose group represented by Thysanopeltis Hawle & Corda, 1847. 3. Subsequently, the family has been considered to include the taxa given under (1). Scutellum Pusch, 1833 (syn: Brontes Goldfuss, 1839; Goldius de Koninck, 1841; Bronteus Goldfuss, 1843) has been considered as the typical genus and the following family group names have been proposed: BRONTEIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (the name first being latinized by Angelin, 1854) GOLDIIDAE Raymond, 1913 SCUTELLIDAE Richter & Richter, 1925 EOBRONTEIDAE Sinclair, 1949 4. Some of these names have not been accepted in the palaeontological literature: BRONTEIDAE was used universally till about 1925 but later it was generally abandoned because the generic names Brontes Goldfuss, 1839 (junior homonym of Brontes Fabricius, 1801) and Bronteus Goldfuss, 1843, proved to be junior synonyms of Scutellum Pusch, 1833. The name BRONTEIDAE cannot be revived under Article 40 because its use was abandoned long before 1960. GOLDIDAE has not been accepted because Goldius de Koninck, 1841, was found to be a junior synonym of Scutellum Pusch, 1833. EOBRONTEIDAE was not accepted because of the derivation of this name from the genus Eobronteus Reed, 1928, not identical to the type-genus of the family. 5. The name SCUTELLIDAE was introduced by Richter & Richter in 1925 to replace the name BRONTEIDAE. It has been universally accepted in spite of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 fact that it was a junior homonym of SCUTELLIDAE Gray, 1825 (Echinoidea; type-genus: Scutella Lamarck, 1816). In view of the existing homonymy Richter & Richter published (but did not submit), in 1955, a proposal to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, requesting it to legalize the original family name SCUTELLIDAE by the official admission of a slight modification represented by an insertion of the letter ““ u”’ before the ending. The name thus was corrected to the spelling ““ SCUTELL-U-IDAE.”” This proposal accords with the intent of Article 55, judging by the example cited. This spelling and the name itself is still being used, at present, by almost all concerned trilobite specialists, and so merits retention under Article 40(a). 6. In 1959 R. C. Moore opposed Richter & Richter’s proposal and he re-introduced the abandoned name THYSANOPELTIDES Hawle & Corda, 1847, which he used as THYSANOPELTIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847, nom. correct. Moore, 1959. Since this attempt at a re-introduction of this name, i.e. since 1959, the name THYSANOPELTIDAE has been used only twice (I. Chlupac, 1966; E. B. Selwood, 1966), whereas all the other authors dealing with this family (M. Snajdr, 1960; Z. A. Maksimowa, 1960; H. B. Whittington, 1960; 1963; 1965; F. Liitke, 1965; H. K. Erben, in press; W. Haas, in press) have retained the name SCUTEL- LUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1925. 7. The re-introduction of the name THYSANOPELTIDES seems undesirable for the following reasons: (a) It has never been adopted in paleontological literature from its origin in 1847 until the attempt to re-introduce it in 1959. It may therefore be considered a nomen oblitum under Article 23(b). (b) Even after its revival, it has not been accepted generally during the past seven years. (c) The application of this name to the whole family contradicts the very intention of its original authors who clearly (by the simultaneous introduction of the name BRONTEIDES) restricted its validity to the group of scutelluids characterized by spinose pygidia. 8. The retention of the family scUTELLUIDAE seems desirable for the follow- ing reasons: (a) Its corrected spelling avoids the above mentioned homonymy. (b) It refers to the genus unanimously considered to be the type-genus of the family. (c) It became established firmly and universally in paleontological literature and it has been retained by almost all concerned trilobite specialists in spite of the attempt to replace it. It seems that any change would in no way contribute to stability of nomenclature. 9. The authors, therefore, request the International Commission on Zoolo- gical Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following family-group names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (a) BRONTEIDES Hawle & Corda, 1847; (b) GOLDIIDAE Raymond, 1913; (2) to rule under the plenary powers that SCUTELLUIDAE is to be regarded as the correct form of the family name based on Scutellum Pusch, 1833, and that this name is to be given precedence over THYSANOPELTIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847, by any zoologist who considers that Scutellum Pusch, 1833, and Thysanopeltis Hawle & Corda, 1847, belong to the same family-group taxon; (3) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology: (a) SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1925 (type-genus Scutellum Pusch, 1833); (b) THYSANOPELTIDAE Hawle & Corda, 1847 (type-genus Thysano- peltis Hawle & Corda, 1847) (not to be given precedence over SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1925); (4) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Scutellum Pusch, 1833 (: 119) (gender : neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Scutellum costatum Pusch, 1833 (: 119); (b) Thysanopeltis Hawle & Corda, 1847 (: 118) (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Thysanopeltis speciosa Hawle & Corda, 1847; (5) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) costatum Pusch, 1833, (: 119) as published in the binomen Scutel- lum costatum (type-species of Scutellum Pusch, 1833); (b) speciosa Hawle & Corda, 1847, (: 118) as published in the binomen Thysanopeltis speciosa (type-species of Thysanopeltis Hawle & Corda, 1847); (6) to place the family-group names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ANGELIN, N. P. 1854. Palaeontologia Scandinavica. P.I. Crustacea Formationis Transitionis. Lipsiae (Lundae) Cuiupac, I. 1966. Sbornik geol. ved. (P).7 : 1-143 ErsEN, H. K. (in press). N. Jahrb. Geol. Paldont. Abh. Go.pruss, A. 1839. Nova Acta Phys. Med. Acad. Caes. Leop. Carol. 19 — 1843. N. Jahrb. Mineral. 537-567 Haas, W. (in press). Acta Palaeontogr. HAwLe, I., and Corpa, A. J.C. 1847. Prodr. Mon. Bohm. Trilob. Koninck, L. G. pe 1841. Mem. Acad. Sci. Bruxelles. 14 : 1-20 LutKe, F. 1965. Palaeontographica, Abh. A. 124 : 151-236 Seen Zz A. 1960. Paleont. Obosnowanje Strat. Paleozoja Rudnogo Altaja. Moorg, R. C. 1959. Treatise Inv. Paleont. yol. O: 0367 Puscu, G. G. 1833. Geognostische Beschreibung von Polen. sowie den iibrigen Nord-Karpathenlandern. Pt. 1 RAYMOND, P. E. 1913. Ottawa Naturalist. 26 : 137-142 ReeD, F.R.C. 1928. Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 10 : 49-78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 RicuTer, Rud., and Ricuter, E. 1925. Senckenbergiana. 7 : 239-244 — 1955. Senckenbergiana leth. 36 : 291-293 SELwWoop, E.G. 1966. British Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bull. 13 : 191-220 Sinciair, G.W. 1949. J. Paleont. 23 : 45-56 Snaspr, M. 1960. Rozpravy ustr. ust. geol. 26 : 1-264 WuitTINcToN, H. B. 1960. J. Paleont. 34: 405-420 —— 1963. Mus. Compar. Zool., Bull. 129 : 1-118 — 1965. Mus. Compar. Zool., Bull, 132 : 275-442 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature FUSULINA GRACILIS MEEK, 1864 (FORAMINIFERIDA): PROPOSED INVALIDATION OF NEOTYPE-MATERIAL, DESIGNATION AS TYPE- SPECIES OF EOPARAFUSULINA COOGAN, 1960, AND RELATED ACTIONS. Z.N.(S.) 1794 By Edward C. Wilson (Natural History Museum, San Diego, California) Thompson and Wheeler (1946, p. 31) designated a “‘ neoholotype ”’ (fig. 1) and “‘ neoparatypes’” for Fusulina gracilis Meek (1864, p. 4, pl. 2, figs. 1, la-lc) from presumed topotype specimens collected in the Lower Permian McCloud Limestone of northern California because “ Meek’s original speci- mens apparently are irretrievably lost.” Coogan (1960, p. 262) named this species type-species of his subgenus Eoparafusulina and refigured (op. cit., pl. 23, fig. 4) one of the “‘ neoparatypes ”’ of Thompson and Wheeler (1946, p. 1, fig. 9). Skinner and Wilde (1965, p. 73) elevated Eoparafusulina to generic status and argued (op. cit., p. 74) that the neotype for E. gracillis could not be conspecific with the type-material described by Meek because of size differences. There- fore, Skinner and Wilde (1965, p. 77) referred the neotype of E. gracilis, as well as other specimens, to a larger associated species which they named E. thompsoni. They erroneously assumed E. thompsoni to be a replacement name for E. gracilis, whereas it actually was a new species for which no holotype was designated. 2. Skinner and Wilde (1965, p. 74) also considered E. gracilis to be the type-species of Eoparafusulina Coogan, 1960 and referred E. gracilis of Coogan (1960, p. 262, pl. 23, fig. 4) to E. thompsoni. 3. The type-materials of many of Meek’s (1864) species have been found in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. Among these is a fusulinid (fig. 4) clearly designated ““ No. 1, Fusulina gracilis Meek” by a handwritten label glued to the specimen. Although now broken, this specimen seems to have served for Meek’s (1864, pl. 2) figures 1 and la of Fusulina gracilis. In the same collection, a block with a polished surface showing several sections of fusulinids bears a label which reads “‘ 25 sections of Fusulina robusta, Meek & Fusulina gracilis, Meek.” None of these sections is axial or saggital. 4. A thin section (fig. 5), somewhat tangential to the axial plane, prepared by the writer from the syntype labelled ‘‘ No. 1, Fusulina gracilis Meek ”’ shows it to be closely comparable to Skinner and Wilde’s (1965, p. 76) redescription of Eoparafusulina gracilis and much smaller than EF. thompsoni. This confirms their contention (op. cit., p. 74) that E. gracilis of Thompson and Wheeler (1946, p. 31) and Coogan (1960, p. 262) and E. gracilis Meek are not conspecific. 5. In the interest of partially resolving these problems, the writer desires here: (a) to designate the syntype labelled “No. 1, Fusulina gracilis Meek” (figs. 4, 5) as lectotype of Eoparafusulina gracilis (Meek, 1864). The thin section prepared from this specimen will be filed in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, as type no. 3298. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 (b) to designate the syntype (fig. 2) shown in figure 18, plate 34, by Skinner and Wilde (1965) as lectotype of Eoparafusulina thompsoni Skinner and and Wilde (1965, p. 77). This specimen was suggested for lectotype by Skinner (in Jitt., Nov. 4, 1966). It is assumed that ICZN Article 72(d) is inapplicable in this instance, as FE. thompsoni is not a replace- ment name. Other syntypes in this series are designated paralecto- types. The specimens are now at Humble Oil and Refining Company, Midland, Texas, but will be deposited in the palaeontological collections of the University of Kansas (Skinner, in /itt., Nov. 21, 1966). 6. To permit the above actions and stabilize the nomenclature in accordance with its rules, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested : (1) to invalidate the neotype and ‘‘ neoparatypes ”’ erected by Thompson and Wheeler (1946, p. 32) for Eoparafusulina gracilis (Meek, 1864), in accordance with ICZN Article 75 (f); (2) to confirm Fusulina gracilis Meek, 1864, as type-species of Eoparafusulina Coogan, 1960, in accordance with ICZN Article 70 (a) (iii); (3) to place the generic name Eoparafusulina Coogan, 1960 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Fusulina gracilis Meek, 1864, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) gracilis Meek, 1864, as published in the binomen Fusulina gracilis, as interpreted by the lectotype designated in para. 5 (a) above (type-species of Eoparafusulina Coogan, 1960); (b) thompsoni Skinner and Wilde, 1965, as published in the binomen Eoparafusulina thompsoni, as interpreted by the lectotype designated in para. 5 (b) above. REFERENCES Coocan, A. H. 1960. Stratigraphy and paleontology of the Permian Nosoni and Dekkas Formations (Bollibokka Group). Univ. Calif. Publ. Geol. Sci. 36 (5): 243-316, pls. 22-27, 23 text-figs. MEEK, F. B. 1864. Descriptions of the Carboniferous fossils. in MEEK, F. B., and cen, W. M. 1864. Paleontology of California. 1, Philadelphia : 3-16, pls. 1-2 SKINNER, J. W., and Wipe, G. L. 1965. Permian biostratigraphy and fusulinid faunas of the Shasta Lake area, northern California. Univ. Kans. Paleont. Contr., Protozoa 6 : 1-98, pls. 1-65, 3 figs. Tuompson, M. L., and WHEELER, H. W. 1946. Permian fusulinids of northern California. in THompson, M. L. ef al. 1946. Permian fusulinids of Cali- fornia. Geol. Soc. America, Mem. 17 : 21-36, pls. 1-9, text-fig. 3 236 Fic. Fic. Fic. Fic. Fic. vn & WwW N Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Plate 1 . Eoparafusulina thompsoni Skinner and Wilde, 1965. (=E. gracilis neotype of Thompson and Wheeler, 1946). Axial section. x10. . E. thompsoni Skinner and Wilde, lectotype, here designated. Axial section. x10. . E. gracilis Meek, 1864. Hypotype of Skinner and Wilde, 1965. Axial section. x10. . E. gracilis Meek, 1864, lectotype, here designated. Approx. x1. . E. gracilis Meek, 1864, lectotype (at arrow), tangential axial section. Other fusu- linids are Pseudoschwagerina robusta (Meek, 1864) and Pseudofusulinella occidentalis Thompson and Wheeler, 1946. x10. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24 Plate | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 CYATHOCRINITES MILLER, 1821 (CRINOIDEA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1795 By N. Gary Lane (Dept. of Geology, Univ. Calif. at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif., 90024, U.S.A.) In order to promote stability of nomenclature this communication requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to make use of its plenary powers to annul the type-species designation for Cyathocrinites Miller, 1821, by Ferdinand Roemer (1851, Verh. d. naturhist. ver. d. pruess. Rheinl., Jahrg. 8), and to validate the next subsequent designation by Charles Wachs- muth and Frank Springer (1880, Rev. Palaeocr: 1), which accords with all later usage of this genus-group name. Cyathocrinites was proposed by J. S. Miller (1821, Nat. Hist. Crin.) without designation of a type-species. Four nominal species were included in the genus by Miller: Cyathocrinites planus Miller, C. quinquangularis Miller, C. tuber- culatus Miller, and C. rugosus Miller. Austin and Austin (1843, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 11) made Cyathocrinites rugosus Miller the type-species, by monotypy, of their Crotalocrinites Austin and Austin, and C. quinquangularis has been uni- versally regarded as a species of Poteriocrinites. Although the genus-group name Cyathocrinites (=Cyathocrinus Agassiz, 1834) was used several times prior to Roemer’s article in 1851, he was the first to make a firm designation of the type-species (op. cit., p. 365): “‘. . . indem man den Cyathocrinus tuberculatus als Typus derselben betrachet...,’ which I translate as “since one can consider Cyathocrinus tuberculatus as type,” and judge to be an unqualified, unambiguous designation of the type-species. Prior to Roemer’s designation, C. tuberculatus had been included in the genus Tsocrinus Phillips, 1841 (not von Meyer, 1837) by Phillips, which he later called Taxocrinus Phillips, 1843 (in Morris, Cat. Brit. Foss.). In neither instance did Phillips designate a type-species for his genus-group name. Consequently Roemer rightly considered Cyathocrinites a senior subjective synonym of Tsocrinus Phillips and Taxocrinus Phillips, as well as Cladocrinites Austin and Austin, 1843, and so stated (op. cit., p. 365): ‘“‘ Genus Cyathocrinus. Synon. Tsocrinus et Taxocrinus Phillips. Cladocrinites Austin.” Springer (1902, Am. Geol.: 94) ignored Roemer’s type designation, although he was aware of it (Springer, 1920, Crin. Flexibilia : 210), and made Cyathocrinites tuberculatus Miller, 1821, the type-species of a monotypic genus of flexible crinoid, Temno- crinus Springer, 1902. Wachsmuth and Springer (op. cit., p. 79) said that Cyathocrinites planus Miller “‘ ought to be the type of the genus,”’ and (p. 81) “‘ this has induced us to consider the Ashmolean specimen [one of Miller’s original specimens] alone to be Cyathocrinus planus and the type of the genus.” Cyathocrinites planus is an inadunate crinoid and all subsequent workers have considered C. planus to be the type of Cyathocrinites (Bassler, 1938, Foss. Catalogus, 83 : 79). Using the concept that Cyathocrinites refers to an inadunate crinoid, Cyathocrinites Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature has been made the type-genus of the family CyYATHOCRINIDAE and the suborder Cyathocrinina, one of the major subdivisions of inadunate crinoids. If Roemer’s type designation is not annulled then Cyathocrinites must stand for a monotypic flexible crinoid (order Flexibilia), and cannot be used for the fossils with which the name has been associated for so many years. In this event, the next available genus-group name for fossils now called Cyathocrinites is Atocrinus M’Coy, 1844, which has been regarded as a junior synonym since 1860. Although Saccosomopsis Meek and Worthen, 1870, has been considered a junior synonym of Cyathocrinites, this writer has information as yet unpub- lished, that this name is referable to a distinct genus-group. Consequently, Atocrinus would have to be resurrected for Cyathocrinites and the 93 nominal species currently included. Consequently, I request the International Commission to: (1) make use of its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type- species for Cyathocrinites Miller, 1821, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Cyathocrinites planus Miller, 1821, 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) Cyathocrinites Miller, 1821 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cyatho- crinites planus Miller, 1821; (b) Temnocrinus Springer, 1902 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Cyathocrinites tuberculatus Miller, 1821; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) planus Miller, 1821, as published in the binomen Cyathocrinites planus (type-species of Cyathocrinites Miller, 1821); (b) tuberculatus Miller, 1821, as published in the binomen Cyatho- crinites tuberculatus (type-species of Temnocrinus Springer, 1902). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 POLYGNATHUS HINDE, 1879 (CONODONTA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 1796 By Gilbert Klapper (Research Center, Pan American Petroleum Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.), Maurits Lindstrém (Geolog.-paldontologisches Institut, Marburg, Germany) and Willi Ziegler (Geologisches Landesamt Nordr- hein-Westfalen, Krefeld, Germany) The purpose of this application is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to ensure the stability of the name Polygnathus Hinde, 1879. Polygnathus is presently threatened because its type-species is based on a fragment, the generic and specific assign- ment of which is indeterminate. 2. Polygnathus was proposed as a new genus by Hinde (1879, p. 361-362) for Polygnathus dubius, which was based on about 30 discrete conodont speci- mens preserved on a single slab of shale from the Upper Devonian of New York, as well as for 19 other species, four of which were provisionally assigned to the genus, from various localities. Hinde did not designate a type-species for Polygnathus. Nor did Hinde select a holotype for Polygnathus dubius, presumably because he regarded the single slab as containing the remains of only one individual organism, a taxonomic opinion rejected by later specialists. 3. Miller (1889, p. 520) selected Polygnathus dubius as type-species of Polygnathus. 4. Bryant (1921, p. 23) attempted to restrict the concept of Polygnathus by referring only three of the specimens illustrated under the name Polygnathus dubius (Hinde, 1879, pl. XVI, figs. 16-18) to that genus. But Bryant’s action has no nomenclatorial force, for he did not choose a lectotype for Polygnathus dubius. 5. Roundy (1926, p. 13) selected the specimen illustrated by Hinde (1879, pl. XVI, fig. 17) as lectotype of Polygnathus dubius: “1 therefore propose that the genotype [type-species] Polygnathus dubius Hinde be restricted to the specimen shown on his Plate 16 as figure 17.” Roundy stated that he had not seen Hinde’s material. Nevertheless, according to the Code of Zoological Nomen- clature (Art. 74), Roundy’s designation must stand. Branson and Mehl’s (1933, p. 146) selection of the specimen illustrated by Hinde (pl. XVI, fig. 18) as lectotype for Polygnathus dubius has no priority. 6. Ulrich and Bassler (1926, p. 43), Branson and Mehl (1933, p. 146) and Huddle (1934, p. 95) all stated that Bryant (1921) designated Polygnathus pennatus Hinde, 1879, as type-species of the genus. Nowhere in Bryant can an explicit statement to this effect be found. The above authors may have been misled by the fact that Bryant (1921, p. 23) placed Polygnathus dubius (partim) as represented by Hinde’s specimen (pl. XVI, fig. 17) as a subjective synonym under P. pennatus. The discussion under paragraph 7 will attempt to show why this synonymy cannot be accepted. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7. The validity of the name Polygnathus rests on its type-species, Poly- gnathus dubius Hinde, which in turn rests on Roundy’s lectotype. This specimen is an indeterminate fragment. Conodont specialists who have studied Hinde’s type material are agreed in this conclusion. The lectotype is imbedded in a shale matrix which exposes only a lateral view of the specimen, thus making specific assignment impossible and generic assignment at least uncertain. Hass (1962, p. W58) suggested that the lectotype may belong to Ancyrodella Ulrich and Bassler, but to distinguish between Ancyrodella and Polygnathus an unobstructed view of the lower surface, at least, must be visible. Furthermore, there is no possibility of showing that the lectotype is in any way synonymous with what authors since Hinde have represented as Polygnathus dubius. Consequently, Polygnathus dubius is a nomen dubium, and the generic name, Polygnathus, is presently also a nomen dubium. 8. One may continue to regard Polygnathus as a nomen dubium and accept the earliest junior synonym as the name bearer of the concept, Polygnathus. However, we strongly advise against such a course of action. In the interest of nomenclatorial stability the name Polygnathus must be retained. It has had extensive, worldwide use for Devonian and Carboniferous conodonts since its proposal by Hinde and has recently assumed an importance in studies of conodont taxonomy and evolution. No beneficial purpose would be served by allowing a subjective junior synonym to take the place of Polygnathus. 9. Another possible alternative involves the use by the International Commission of its plenary powers to annul Roundy’s designation of the speci- men illustrated by Hinde (pl. XVI, fig. 17) as lectotype of Polygnathus dubius, and to permit the specimen illustrated by Hinde (pl. XVI, fig. 18) to be substi- tuted. The latter specimen is imbedded in a shale matrix which exposes only the lower view. Seen only in this perspective there are at least two equally possible specific assignments for the specimen of Hinde’s pl. XVI, fig. 18: Polygnathus cristatus Hinde, 1879, and Polygnathus dubius of authors. Thus, like Roundy’s lectotype, the specific assignment of the specimen illustrated on Hinde’s pl. XVI, fig. 18, is also in doubt. Substitution of the latter specimen as a new lectotype would not alter the fundamental situation described in paragraph 7. 10. A third alternative involves the establishment of a neotype for Poly- gnathus dubius to conform to the prevailing concept of the literature since Hinde. This course of action meets with two objections. First, there has been no “ loss or destruction ” of the type material of Hinde (1879), which is still available for study in the British Museum (Natural History). The second item is the fact that the stratigraphic (geological) horizon of Hinde’s type material of P. dubius cannot be determined (John W. Huddle and the late W. H. Hass intensively studied the type locality of P. dubius at Eighteenmile Creek, near North Evans, New York, and have reached this conclusion; Huddle, personal com- munication, 1966). Thus, on two important counts, the conditions necessary for the establishment of a neotype (Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article 75) for Polygnathus dubius are not fulfilled. 11. A fourth alternative involves the use by the International Commission of its plenary powers to annul the subsequent designation by Miller (1889, p. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241 520) of Polygnathus dubius as type-species of Polygnathus and to allow the estab- lishment of a new type-species for the genus. Such a proposal was suggested earlier by Ziegler et al. (1964). We believe that this course of action has the optimum potential for ensuring the nomenclatorial stability of Polygnathus. We also believe that the new type-species should be a species based on a holo- type that is a free specimen unimbedded in rock matrix. We emphasize the need for this last qualification, because adequate study of conodonts necessi- tates the viewing of all aspects of a specimen. It is for this reason that we do not advocate one of the other of Hinde’s species of Polygnathus as the new type-species, because they are all based on specimens imbedded in shale matrix and, to a varying degree depending on which of Hinde’s species might be chosen, Polygnathus would still have the doubtful status described under paragraph 7. Therefore, we propose that Polygnathus robusticostatus Bischoff & Ziegler (1957, p. 95-96), which is based on a holotype that is a free specimen, be selected as the new type-species of Polygnathus. 12. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Polygnathus Hinde, 1879, and, having done so, to designate Polygnathus robusticostatus Bischoff & Ziegler, 1957, to be the type-species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Polygnathus Hinde, 1879 (gender : masculine) type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Polygnathus robusticostatus Bischoff & Ziegler, 1957 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name robusticostatus Bischoff & Ziegler, 1957, as published in the binomen Polygnathus robusticostatus (type-species of Polygnathus Hinde, 1879) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED Biscuorr, G., and ZIEGLER, W. 1957. Die Conodontenchronologie des Mitteldevons und des tiefsten Oberdevons : Abh. hess. L.-Amt Bodenforsch. 22, 136 p. BRANSON, E. B., and MEHL, M. G. 1933. A study of Hinde’s types of conodonts preserved in the British Museum, in Conodont studies number two: Univ. Missouri Studies 8(2), 133-156 BrYANT, W. L. 1921. The Genesee conodonts: Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci. Bull. 13(2), 59 p. Hass, W. H. 1962. Conodonts, in R. C. Moore, ed., Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, Pt. W, Miscellanea: Geol. Soc. America and Univ. Kansas Press, p. W3-W69 Hinpe, G. J. 1879. On conodonts from the Chazy and Cincinnati Group of the Cambro-Silurian, and from the Hamilton and Genesee-Shale divisions of the Peon Canada and the United States: Geol. Soc. London Quart. Jour. : 351-3 Hupp te, J. W. 1934. Conodonts from the New Albany Shale of Indiana: Bull. Am. Palaeontology 21(72), 136 p. Micter, S. A. 1889. North American geology and palaeontology for the use of amateurs, students, and scientists: Western Methodist Book Concern, Cin- cinnati, Ohio, 718 p. 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Rounpy, P. V. 1926. The micro-fauna, in Roundy, P. V., Girty, G. H., and Gold- man, M. I., Mississippian formations in San Saba County, Texas: U.S. Geol Survey Prof. Paper 146, 5-23 Utricu, E. O., and Basster, R. L. 1926. A classification of the toothlike fossils, conodonts, with descriptions of American Devonian and Mississippian species: U.S. Natl. Mus. Proc. 68(12), 63 p. ZIEGLER, W., KLAPPER, G., and LINDsTROM, M. 1964. The validity of the name Polygnathus (Conodonta, Devonian and Lower Carboniferous): Jour. Paleontology 38(2) : 421-423 POLYGNATHUS DUBIUS HINDE, 1879 (CONODONTA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS By Klaus J. Miiller (Institute of Paleontology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany) and David L. Clark (Department of Geology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.) We are in agreement with paragraphs 1-9 of the proposal by Klapper, Lindstrém and Ziegler. However, in our opinion the designation of a neotype for Polygnathus dubius would be preferable for the following reasons: 1. Polygnathus dubius is a common and well-known species and it has been used extensively in North America, Europe and Australia (Clark and Ethington, 1967; Ziegler, 1962; Glenister and Klapper, 1966). 2. Polygnathus dubius was recognized as the basis for subzone designation in the Middle Devonian and, subsequently, the Polygnathus dubius zone has gained worldwide recognition as the lower zone of the standard Upper Devo- nian conodont sequence (Ziegler, 1962). 3. There is agreement among all conodont students as to the taxonomic content and concept of Polygnathus dubius. 4. Biologically distinct and geologically useful subspecies designations of Polygnathus dubius have been recognized. A name change for the species would result in a complex change for the subspecies, as well. For example, Ziegler and Klapper (in Ziegler, Klapper and Lindstrém, 1964, p. 422-423) proposed the name Polygnathus asymmetrica ovalis ““for the concept centering around P. dubia dubia sensu Bischoff and Ziegler ”’ illustrating the agreement concerning the concept of the species but also the fact that Polygnathus dubia asymmetrica Bischoff and Ziegler would become Polygnathus asymmetrica asymmetrica. 5. The proposed new type-species Polygnathus robusticostatus Bischoff and Ziegler, 1957, is a different kind of Polygnathus from P. dubius. Future taxo- nomic difficulties could result from a change in the concept of the type. Because a designation of a new type specimen would avoid the difficulties arising from a new concept of the type and from a name change, it is suggested to annul the type specimen designation of Polygnathus dubius. A neotype could then be substituted. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 A suitable, well preserved and isolated specimen is available from the Squaw Bay Limestone in Michigan. It conforms to the presently agreed upon concept of P. dubius and will be illustrated in upper, lateral and lower views in the July, 1967, Journal of Paleontology (Miiller and Clark, Pl. 1, fig. 5a—c, United States National Museum Number 155438). As an alternate, the specimen illustrated by Ziegler, 1958, Pl. 1, fig. 1, 2a, b, from the Martenburg near Adorf, Rheinisches Schiefergebirge in middle Europe, could be designated as neotype. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-specimens for the nominal species Polygnathus dubius Hinde, 1879, and having done so to designate the specimen U.S.N.M. No. 155438 to be the neotype of that species; (2) to place the generic name Polygnathus Hinde, 1879 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Miller, 1889, Polygnathus dubius Hinde, 1879, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name dubius Hinde, 1879, as published in the binomen Polygnathus dubius, as interpreted by the neotype designated under the plenary powers (type-species of Polygnathus Hinde, 1879) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Crark, D. L., and ErHincton, R. L. 1967. Conodonts and zonation of the Upper ghar in the Great Basin: Geol. Soc. America Memoir 103, 107 p., 9 pls., 11 figs. GLENISTER, B. F., and KLApPEeR, GILBERT. 1966. Upper Devonian conodonts from te Sar ei Basin, Western Australia: Jour. Paleontology 40 : 777-842, pls. 85-96 MU ter, K. J., and CLarK, D. L. 1967. Early Late Devonian conodonts from the Squaw Bay Formation in Michigan: Jour. Paleontology 41, July, in press ZIEGLER, WILLI. 1958. Conodontenfeinstratigraphische Untersuchungen an der Grenze Mitteldevon/Oberdevon und in der Adorfstufe: Notizbl. hess. L.-Amt Bodenf. 87 : 7-77, pl. 1-12, 7 figs. 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature O. F. MULLER: EFTERRETNING OM UBEKIENDTE EEN-OYER I VORE FAERSKE VANDE, KIOBENHAVNSKE EFTERRETNINGER OM LAERDE SAGER. Il. HAFTE (52), 28 DEC. 1769, ETC: A WORK PROPOSED FOR THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID WORKS IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Z.N.(S.) 1797 By Ulrik Roen (Institute of Comparative Anatomy, Kobenhayns Universitet, Universitetsparken 15, Kobenhavn, Denmark) The aim of the present proposal is to avoid the unnecessary and disturbing change in the year of publication of the names of some important Crustacea Entomostraca. The work cited in the title is extremely rare. There are three editions of it: (a) Efterretning om ubekiendte Een-@yer i vore feerske Vande.—Kioben- haynske Efterretninger om lerde sager. Il. Hefte. Nr. 52. 28de Decbr., 1769. (b) Efterretning om ubekiendte Een-Oyer i vore ferske Vande.—Kritisk Journal, Kigbenhavn. Nr. 3. 1770. (c) A translation into Latin: Monoculi Aquarum agri Fridrichsdalensis.— Gazette Littéraire de Berlin. 1770. 2. As early as in 1878 C. C. A. Gosch wrote in his list of Danish zoological literature that he was able to trace the third paper only from the Royal Library in Berlin, and only the first of these papers has been accessible to me. 3. The papers have all been completely forgotten in scientific literature, and are in themselves hardly to be characterized as scientific in aim. The names Cythere (p. 849), Lynceus (p. 850), Cyclops (p. 851) and Polyphemus (p. 851) are mentioned, but without figures and with very poor descriptions from which it is impossible with certainty to recognize the animals in question. There is no indication, moreover, that the names there used were transposed by O. F. Miiller when, some years later, he published them again: Cythere: Entomostraca seu Insecta testacea que in Aquis Danie et Norvegi@ reperit, descripsit et Iconibus illustra vit—Havnie p. 63. Polyphemus: ibid p. 118. Lynceus: Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus—Havniz 1776 p. 199. Cyclops: ibid. p. 200. 4. The existence of the first of these papers has been known to me for quite some time, and I have always found it completely unsuitable as a reference work for the description of important genera, but as my attention now has been called to the possibility that somebody finding it may attempt to change the adopted reference of O. F. Miiller, 1785 and 1776 to O. F. Miiller, 1769 for these four genera, I consider it better hereby to propose that the International Com- mission (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the following papers by O. F. Miiller: (a) Efterretning om ubekiendte Een-@yer i vore ferske Vande.—Kio- benhavnske Efterretninger om laerde Sager. Wl. Hefte. Nr. 52. 28 de Decbr. 1769. (b) Efterretning om ubekiendte Een-@yer i vore ferske Vande.—Kritisk Journal, Kiobenhayn. Nr. 3, 1770. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 (c) Monoculi Aquarum agri Fridrichsdalensis.—Gazette Littéraire de Berlin (2) place the papers suppressed under (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. By Torben Wolff (Universitets zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) Dr. U. Regen has shown me his application for the preservation of the name Lynceus and Cyclops as of O. F. Miiller, 1776, and Cythere and Polyphemus of O. F. Miiller, 1785. I am convinced that Dr. Rgens proposals will serve stability in these names and I therefore agree with him in asking for the suppression of the papers he enumerates. 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PHRYGANEA MAXIMA SCOPOLI, 1763 (INSECTA, PLECOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1799 By Carlo Consiglio (Zoological Institute of the University of Rome, directed by Prof. Pasquale Pasquini) The object of the present application is to request the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to make a ruling that would stabilize the usage of the specific name Perla marginata (Panzer), as understood for over a century. 1. Scopoli, 1763 (Entomologia Carniolica: 269) described Phryganea maxima (type locality: Idria, now Idrija in Slovenia), a species whose descrip- tion very clearly refers to a member of the order Plecoptera. 2. For over a century and a half, Phryganea maxima Scopoli was con- sidered to be a dubious species, or held to be the same species as Perla bipunctata Pictet. 3. Klapdlek, 1923 (Coll. zool. Baron Edm. de Selys-Longchamps, 4(2) : 40) first applied the name Perla maxima (Scopoli) to a species that was previously described as new by Rambur, 1842 (Hist. nat. Ins. Névr.: 454) under the name P. grandis, and by Klapdlek, 1900 (Ceska Akad. Cis. Fr. Jos. (2)9(14) : 10) under the name P. alpicola. 4. Schoenemund, 1925 (Z. f. wiss. Insektenbiol., Beilage, 3 : 49) states that Phryganea maxima Scopoli is the same species as Perla marginata (Panzer), described as Semblis marginata Panzer, 1799 (Fauna. Ins. Germ. Initia, 6(71)). This view was supported not only by an interpretation of Scopoli’s descrip- tion, but also by searching at different times of the year in the type locality of Phryganea maxima Scopoli without finding the species that was named Perla alpicola by Klapalek, 1900. Strangely enough, he continued to call Perla marginata by Panzer’s name, claiming that this resulted from the application of the Law of Priority! 5. Aubert, 1946 (Mitt. Schweiz. Ent. Ges., 20 : 18) and all following authors overlooked the Schoenemund’s paper, and continued to use Scopoli’s name Perla maxima in the sense of Klapalek, 1923. 6. In an article in press, I apply the name Perla grandis Rambur to the species described by Klapdlek, 1900, under the name P. alpicola, discarding Scopoli’s name P. maxima as referring to another species, namely P. marginata (Panzer). 7. However, the application to the latter species of Scopoli’s name would cause a considerable confusion in the nomenclature of Plecoptera. The specific name maxima seems not to have been used to indicate Perla marginata (Panzer) after Scopoli, 1763, that is, for over two hundred years. 8. The International Commission is therefore requested : (1) to suppress, under the plenary powers, the specific name maxima Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Phryganea maxima, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 (2) to place the specific name maxima Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Phryganea maxima, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name marginata Panzer, 1799, as published in the binomen Semblis marginata, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MYOPHORIA KEFERSTEINI (MUNSTER IN GOLDFUSS, 1837) (PELECYPODA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1800 By N. Fantini Sestini (Unstitute of Palaeontology, University of Milan, Italy) The purpose of this note is to put before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the question of the validity of the specific name Myophoria kefersteini (Miinster, 1837), which has been subjected to doubt by a case of synonymy. In view however of the importance of this species in the stratigraphy of the Carnian of the Alps and particularly on account of the stability of nomenclature, it is considered that the Commission should be asked to retain this specific name. The salient points of the case are summarized below: 1. The species in question was originally recognized by Miinster in 1828 in material from Raibl (Carnic Alps), as a result of the work of Keferstein (1828), in which the author stated: ‘* Unter den grésseren Muscheln zeichnet sich eine Trigonia aus, die der vulgaris aus dem Muschelkalke ahnelt; Herr Graf Miinster hilt sie fiir eine neue Art und wird sie unter dem Namen Trigonia kefersteini beschreiben.” (Among the larger mussels is a Trigonia which resem- bles the vulgaris of the Muschelkalk; Count Miinster considers it to be a new form and describes it under the name Trigonia kefersteini.) Miinster did not follow up this communication during the same year with the description of the new form. According to Art. 12 of the International Code on Zoological Nomenclature, the name kefersteini would therefore appear to be invalid. 2. In 1835 Boué described and illustrated a fine specimen of the same species, also from Raibl. Although unaware of the work of Keferstein, he nevertheless considered the species to be new to science and termed it Cryptina raibeliana. According to the rules, this should be the valid name for the species. 3. In 1837 Miinster finally illustrated in “‘ Petrefacta Germaniae ”’ (Gold- fuss) a specimen of Myophoria kefersteini (in the binomen Lydrodon kefersteini) originating from Raibl, which appears to bear little resemblance to the typical form from this locality. 4. As far as can be ascertained, only Alberti (1864) subsequently confirmed the name Cryptina raibeliana of Boué, considering Myophoria kefersteini (Miinster) to be among the synonyms of this species. All other authors, though not ignoring the name proposed by Boué, invariably employ the name kefersteini given by Miinster. Waagen himself in 1907, while being fully aware of the problems of nomenclature, preferred to keep the specific name kefersteini, by this time well-used in palaeontological literature. 5. For the above reasons it is requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature suppress Cryptina raibeliana Boué under the plenary powers, and that instead the name Myophoria kefersteini (Miinster) be substituted on account of the extensive use of the latter name in geological and palaeontological literature. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Plate 2 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 6. In the event of raibeliana being declared suppressed, the lectotype of the Kefersteini should be the specimen illustrated by Miinster in Goldfuss, 1837, pl. 136, figs. 2a, b, preserved at Munich (Bayerische Staatssammlung fiir Pala- ontologie und historische Geologie, no. AS VII 351). This specimen although somewhat incomplete and having the left valve fractured, can be considered a typical representative of M. kefersteini. Fig. 2a does not depict the actual left valve, but the mirror image of the right valve. The differences between the specimen of Goldfuss and the other representa- tives of the species are therefore due only to an illustrational error. The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name raibeliana Boué, 1835, as published in the binomen Cryptina raibeliana, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) 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; (3) to place the specific name kefersteini Miinster, 1837, as published in the binomen Lyrodon kefersteini, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ALBERTI, F. 1864. Ueberblick iiber die Trias mit Beriicksichtigung ihres Vorkommens in den Alpen. 353 pp., 7 pls., Stuttgart Bou, A. 1935. Apercu sur la constitution géologique des provinces illyriennes. Mém. Soc. Geol. France 2 : 41-89, 4 pls., Paris Gotpruss, G. A. 1833-40. Petrefacta Germaniae 2, 312 pp., 94 pls., Diisseldorf KEFERSTEIN, C. 1828. Bemerkungen, gesammelt auf. einer geognostischen Reise in Sommer 1828 besonders iiber die Alpen in Steiermark, Krain und Illyrien. Deutschland 6, Weimar Waacen, L. 1907. Die Lamellibranchiaten der Pachycardientuffe der Seiser Alm nebst vergleichend paleontologischen und phylogenetischen Studien. Abh. k. k. Geol. Reichsanst. 18, 180 pp., 10 pls., 19 text-figs., Wien Plate 2 Myophoria kefersteini (Minster)—lectotype. a-c: respectively right valve, left valve and postero-dorsal view. 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MACACA FUSCATA (BLYTH, 1875); PROPOSED CONSERVATION AS THE NAME FOR THE JAPANESE MACAQUE (MAMMALIA). Z.N{S.) 1802 By Jack Fooden (Field Museum of Natural History and Illinois Teachers’ College-South, Chicago) Macaca fuscata (Blyth, 1875) is the name applied to the Japanese red-faced stump-tailed macaque by virtually all authors in the present century. Revisory study has revealed, however, that two earlier names are available for this species. 2. The first name proposed for the Japanese macaque is Macaca speciosa I. Geoffroy, 1826. As explained elsewhere (Fooden, 1966, p. 153), the name speciosa also has been mistakenly applied by Blyth (1875, p. 6) and many later authors to another red-faced stump-tailed macaque, the southeast Asian bear macaque, Macaca arctoides I. Geoffroy, [1831]. The second name proposed for the Japanese macaque is Papio japonicus [Rennie], published anonymously in 1838 and not used thereafter, except in a footnote citation by Anderson (1878, p. 78). The third name proposed for the Japanese macaque is J[nuus] fuscatus Blyth, 1875. 3. Strict adherence to the principle of priority would result in displacement of fuscata Blyth, 1875, by speciosa I. Geoffroy, 1826. However, revival of speciosa as the name for the Japanese macaque almost certainly would lead to serious bibliographic confusion because of recent widespread, albeit incorrect use of the same name for the superficially similar bear macaque, Macaca arctoides. Such confusion can be avoided by formal suppression of speciosa I. Geoffroy, 1826. 4. To conserve fuscata Blyth, 1875, as the valid name of the Japanese macaque, it is also desirable to suppress the neglected japonicus [Rennie], 1838. 5. No action by the Commission is required with respect to the name of the southeast Asian bear macaque. For this monkey the name arctoides I. Geoffroy, [1831] (pp. 61, 77), based on a specimen preserved in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, is available and current (Thomas, 1927, p. 43; Miller, 1933, p. 5; Pocock, 1939, p. 74; Kellogg, 1945, p. 124; Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, 1951, p. 199), and, fortunately, this name has priority over the wrongly applied speciosa of Blyth (1875, p.6) and later authors. 6. To avoid bibliographic confusion and to preserve nomenclatural stability, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) speciosus 1. Geoffroy, 1826, p. 589, as published in the binomen Macacus speciosus; (b) japonicus Rennie, 1838, pp. 364, 396, as published in the binomen Papio japonicus. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 (2) to place the specific name fuscatus Blyth, 1875, p. 6, as published in the binomen /[nuus] fuscatus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) to place the specific names proposed for suppression in (1) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ANDERSON, J. 1878. Anatomical and zoological researches: comprising an account of the zoological results of the two expeditions to western Yunnan in 1868 and 1875..., vol. 1. Quaritch, London, xxv + 985 pp. BiytH, E. 1875. Catalogue of mammals and birds of Burma. J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 1875. pt. 2, extra number, xxiv + 167 pp. ELLERMAN, J. R., and Morrison-Scott, T. C. 8. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals 1758 to 1946. British Museum, London, 810 pp. FoopeEn, J. 1966. Identification of the stump-tailed monkey, Macaca speciosa I. Geoffroy, 1926. Folia primat. 5 : 153-164 GeorrRoy, I. 1826. Macaque. Jn Bory de Saint-Vincent, Dictionnaire classique @ histoire naturelle 9. Rey et Gravier and Baudouin Freres, Paris, pp. 584-590 — [1831]. Mammiféres. Jn Belanger, C., Voyage au Indes-Orientales... Bertrand, Paris, pp. 1-160. (For date of publication see Sherborn, C. D., and Woodward, B. B., Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (7) 7 : 390) KELLOGG, R. 1945. Macaques. Jn Aberle, S. D., Primate malaria. National Research Council, Division of Medical Sciences, Office of Medical Information, Washington, pp. 113-134. Miter, G.S., Jk. 1933. The groups and names of macaques. Jn Hartman, C. G., and Straus, W. L., Jr., The anatomy of the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta). Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp. 1-9 Pocock, R. I. 1939. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia, 1, Taylor and Francis, London, xxxiii + 463 pp. [RENNIE, J.]_ 1838. The menageries. The natural history of monkeys, oppossums, and lemurs, 1, Knight, London (For name of author see British Museum catalogue of printed books, vol. 143, col. 1839, British Museum, London, 1964) Tuomas, O. 1927. The Delacour exploration of French Indo-China. Proc. zool. Soc. London 1927 : 41-58 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REQUEST FOR A RULING TO CORRECT HOMONYMY IN NAMES OF THE FAMILY-GROUPS BASED ON PLETHODUS (PISCES) and PLETHODON (CAUDATA). Z.N.(S.) 1803 By Bruce B. Collette (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Ichthyological Laboratory, U.S National Museum, Washington, D.C.) and David B. Wake (Department of Anatomy, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois) When homonymy exists between family-group names based on similar but not identical names of type-genera, the case is to be referred to the International Commission (1964, International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Art. 55(a)). A case of homonymy involves the family-group name PLETHODONTIDAE, in current use both in Amphibia (Caudata) and Pisces (Osteoglossiformes). Plethodon Tschudi, 1838, is the type-genus of the family-group name PLETHODONTIDAE Gray, 1850. This family, the lungless salamanders, consists of 23 genera and about 185 species limited to the New World except for two species in southern Europe (Wake, 1966). Plethodus Dixon, 1850, is the type-genus of the family-group name PLETHO- DIDAE Loomis, 1900. This family of fossil osteoglossoid fishes consists of about eight genera known from the Upper Cretaceous of Europe, North Africa, and North America (Bardack, 1965). Loomis (1900) clearly proposed a new family PLETHODIDAE for Plethodus, Thryptodus, and Pseudothryptodus, but for some inexplicable reason he introduced the teleost section of his paper with “* Plethodidae A. S. Woodward.” As a result several authors (e.g., Hay, 1929) have credited Woodward with authorship of the family PLETHODIDAE. In his 1902 catalogue, Hay referred to Loomis (1900) as “‘ Plethodidae, part ” under OSTEOGLOSSIDAE. But then in his second edition (1929), he used the head- ing “‘ Plethodontidae Woodward ” and credited the description of the family to Woodward, 1912, even though he again listed Loomis (1900) with the notation PLETHODIDAE. The Zoological Record for 1936 used PLETHODONTIDAE as did Weiler (1935) and Stromer (1936). Most other workers have used either PLETHODIDAE (Berg, 1940, 1955; Bertin and Arambourg, 1957; Bardack, 1965) Or THRYPTODONTIDAE (described by Jordan, 1923 : 119, as a substitute name) to avoid homonymy with the salamander family but several recent authors (e.g. Romer, 1945; Greenwood et al., 1966) have used PLETHODONTIDAE for the fossil fish family. Romer (1966) used THRYPTODONTIDAE with PLETHODONTIDAE in parentheses and on page 63 used only the former. Both generic names, Plethodon and Plethodus, result in the family name PLETHODONTIDAE because odon is a variant of odous and they each have the genitive odontos (Brown, 1954). Because the salamander family is much larger and far better known to both laymen and specialists than the fossil fish family, it seems most reasonable to continue to use PLETHODONTIDAE for the salaman- ders. Also, two other names have been used for the fossil fishes, the incorrectly formed PLETHODIDAE and the substitute name THRYPTODONTIDAE. PLETHODIDAE is the earlier name and has been used more often so the Commission is requested : Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 (1) to rule under the plenary powers that PLETHODIDAE is to be accepted as thecorrect spelling of the family-group name based on Plethodus Dixon, 1850; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Plethodon Tschudi, 1838 (:92) (gender : masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Bibron (in Bonaparte, 1839, Icon. Fauna Ital. 2 (26), sign. 131**, Euproctus platycephalus [4]) in proposing Phatnomatorhina as a substitute name for Plethodon, Salamandra glutinosa Green, 1818 (Caudata); (b) Plethodus Dixon, 1850 (:394) (gender : masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Woodward, 1899, Plethodus expansus Dixon, 1850 (Pisces) ; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) glutinosa Green, 1818 (:357), as published in the binomen Sala- mandra glutinosa (type-species of Plethodon Tschudi, 1838) (Caudata); (b) expansus Dixon, 1850 (:394), as published in the binomen Plethodus expansus (type-species of Plethodus Dixon, 1850) (Pisces) ; (4) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology: (a) PLETHODONTIDAE Gray, 1850 (:31) (type-genus Plethodon Tschudi, 1838) (Caudata); (b) PLETHODIDAE Loomis, 1900 (: 229) (type-genus Plethodus Dixon, 1850) (Pisces) ; (5) to place the following family-group name on the Official Index of Re- jected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) PLETHODONTIDAE Hay, 1929 (type-genus Plethodus Dixon, 1850) (Ruled under the plenary powers to be an incorrect spelling for PLETHODIDAE Loomis 1900) (Pisces). LITERATURE CITED BaArRDACK, David. 1965. New Upper Cretaceous teleost fish from Texas. Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib. Paper No. 1 : 1-9 Berc, L. S. 1940. Classification of fishes and fishlike vertebrates, both Recent and fossil. Trudy Zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 5 : 87-517. [In Russian and English, lithoprinted by Edwards Bros., Ann Arbor, Mich., 1947.] — 1955. Ibid. (ed. 2) 20 : 1-286. [In Russian] BeERTIN, Leon and Camille ARAMBOURG. 1957. Super-ordre des téléostéens (Teleostei). In: Traite de Zoologie, P. P. Grasse ed., 13 (3) : 2204-2500 Bonaparte, Carlo L. Principe. 1839. Jconografia della fauna Italica per le quattro classi degli animali vertebrati. YW. Amfibi. Fasc. XXVI. Brown, Rone W. 1954. Composition of scientific words. Published by the author Dixon, Frederick. 1850. The geology and fossils of the Tertiary and Cretaceous formations of Sussex Gray, J. E. 1850. Catalogue of the specimens of Amphibia in the collection of the British Museum. Part Il. Batrachia gradientia, etc. Spottiswood and Shaw, London, 72 pp. 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature GREEN, Jacob. 1818. Descriptions of several species of North American Amphibia, accompanied with observations. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1 (2) : 348-359 GREENWOOD, P. Humphry, Donn E. Rosen, Stanley H. WEITZMAN, and George S. Myers. 1966. Phyletic studies of teleostean fishes, with a provisional classifi- cation of living forms. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 131 (4) : 339-456 Hay, Oliver P. 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil vertebrates of North America. Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. 179, 868 pp. —— 1929. Second bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Carnegie Inst. Washington Publ. No. 390, vol. 1, 916 pp. JORDAN, David Starr. 1923. A classification of fishes including families and genera as faras known. Stanford Univ. Publ., Univ. Ser., Biol. Sci., 3 (2) : 77-243 Loomis, Frederic B. 1900. Die Anatomie und die Verwandtschaft der Ganoid- und Knochen-Fische. Paleontographica 46 : 213-283 Romer, Alfred Sherwood. 1945. Vertebrate Paleontology. 2nded. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 687 pp. —— 1966. Ibid. 3rded. 468 pp. Srromer, Ernst. 1936. Ergebnisse der Foschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromers in den Wiisten Agyptens. VII. Baharije-Kessel und Stufe mit deren Fauna und Flora eine ergianzende Zusammenfassung. Abhand. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., N.F. No. 33, 102 pp. TscHup!, Johann Jacob von. 1838. Classification der Batrachier, mit Beriick- sichtigung der fossilen Thiere dieser Abtheilung der Reptilien. Mém. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchdtel 2 : 1-100 Wake, David B. 1966. Comparative osteology and evolution of the lungless salamanders, family Plethodontidae. Mem. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 4: 1-111 Weier, Wilhelm. 1935. Ergebnisse der Forschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromers in den Wiisten Agyptens. 16. Neue Untersuchungen an Fischresten. Abhand. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., N.F. No. 32, 57 pp. Woopwarp, A. Smith. 1899. On the Cretaceous fish Plethodus. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (7) 3 : 353-361 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 CHARAXES JOCASTE BUTLER, 1865 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.NAS.) 1806 By V. G. L. van Someren (P.O. Box 24947, Karen, Kenya) The specific name jocaste was first used by Doubleday, 1848, in his List Lepidoptera British Museum, Appendix: 28. His name was without description or indication except that he referred to jocaste Boisduval MS, and stated that there were two specimens (a and b) from Senegal in the British Museum collection (Mr. Beckers Collection). This name was consequently, a nomen nudum. 2. In 1850, Westwood (in Doubleday and Westwood, Genera Diurnal Lepidoptera, 2 : 309, no. 17) referred to Nymphalis Iocaste, synonym Charaxes Tocaste Boisduval MS. and E. Doubleday, List Lep. B.M., App.: 28. There was no description and this name also was a nomen nudum. 3. In 1865, Butler in a revison of the genus Charaxes (Proc. zool. Soc. London 1865 : 623-639) included on p. 628 under his section: ‘“‘ Alae fuscae, maculis pallidis submarginata: fascia media fulva, apice anticarum interrupta; posticae margine angusto pallido: subtus lunulis viridi-flavis fasciatae.”, four species No. 19 C. fabius Fabricius, 1781 (India); no. 20 C. lampedo Hiibner, date? (loc. unknown); no. 21 C. iocaste Doubleday, 1848 (Senegal) and C. Solan Fabricius, 1792 (loc. unknown). This name (iocaste) was regarded by later workers as a nomen nudum. In 1866 C. Felder (Reisde Ost. Freg. Novara., Zool. 11, Lepid. II : 446 no. 729) described this specific taxon under the name Charaxes achaemenes sp. nov. based on specimens from South Africa: Port Natal, Zambesi, Coll. F. In 1869 Butler (Trans. ent. Soc. London : 274 footnote) wrote: “‘Felder’s C. achaemenes is the male of C. Jocaste; my sectional description taken in connec- tion with the locality [Senegal], sufficiently characterized the insect, so that Felder’s name must sink into a synonym.” Most authors however have regarded jocaste Butler 1865 as an unavailable name if not a nomen nudum and have accepted C. achaemenes Felder, 1826, as the valid name of the taxon. 4. Art. 12 of the International Code states that names published before 1931 must have been accompanied by a description, definition or indication. Now Butler gave a sectional (key) description for 4 species only one of which, that from Senegal, could be C. jocaste Butler. Article 16 does not give group description + locality as an indication but some people would regard his argu- ment as sound. This is more so because the two specimens from Senegal seen by Butler in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) are still extant and agree with his description. One of them could be designated lectotype of Charaxes jocaste Butler, 1865, if this is regarded as an available name. 5. Later authors have preferred to use achaemenes Felder to Butler’s doubtfully available name, and jocaste Butler has become a nomen oblitum. According to Article 23b such names must not be used but must be submitted to the International Commission, to be placed either on the Official Index or if such Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 4. September 1967. 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature action better serves stability and universality, on the Official List. Unfortunate- ly Article 23b is at present under discussion by the Commission and the Secre- tariat has been instructed not to publish applications involving this article until some solution of the problem has been reached. In order to maintain the well used name Charaxes achaemenes Felder, 1866, it will therefore be necessary to suppress Charaxes jocaste Butler, 1865, under the plenary powers in case it is regarded as an available name. 6. The specific taxon Charaxes achaemenes C. Felder is now known to comprise several subspecies in various parts of Africa. That found in Senegal will need a new name if its original name jocaste Butler is suppressed under the plenary powers. It would be unwise to use the name jocaste again and the W. African subspecies will therefore be re-described by me as new. 7. The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested to decide whether Charaxes jocaste Butler, 1865, isan available name and if so to take the following action: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the name jocaste Butler, 1865, as published in the binomen Charaxes jocaste, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the specific name jocaste Butler, 1865, as published in the binomen Charaxes jocaste (as suppressed under (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name achaemenes Felder, 1866, as published in the binomen Charaxes achaemenes, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. (Secretary and Managing Director) The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merten, P.C., C.H. Dr. G. O. Evans Dr. L. B. Holthuis Mr. R. V. Melville Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte B. The Officers of the Trust W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. (Scientific Controller) Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Opinions Opinion 819 ( Ypthima Hiibner, 1818) Opinion 820 (Napaea Hiibner, [1819]) Opinion 821 (Jaspis Kaye, 1904) .. Opinion 822 (Pithecops Horsfield, [1 828]) Opinion 823 (Arisbe Hiibner, [1819]) Opinion 824 (Phrissura Butler, 1870) ss Opinion 825 (Adopaeoides Godman, [1900]) Opinion 826 (Artines Godman, [1901]) Opinion 827 (Gegenes Hiibner, [1819]) Opinion 828 (Halpe Moore, 1878) .. New Cases SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1925 (Trilobita): Proposed addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names (H. K. Erben and H. B. Whittington) Fusulina gracilis Meek, 1864 (Foraminifera): Proposed invalidation of neotype- material, designation as type-species of Eoparafusulina Coogan, 1960, and related actions (Edward C. Wilson) ‘ Cyathocrinites Miller, 1821 (Crinoidea): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (N. Gary Lane) 3 Polygnathus Hinde, 1879 (Conodonta): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (Gilber Klapper, Maurits Lindstrém and Willi Ziegler) : Polygnathus dubius Hinde, 1879 (Conodonta): Proposed designation of a neo- type under the plenary powers (Klaus J. Miiller and David L. Clark) O. F. Miiller: Efterretning om ubekiendte Een-@yer i vore ferske Vande, Kiobenhavnske Efterretninger om lerde sager. Yl, Haefte (52), 28 Dec. 1769, etc.:; A work proposed for the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature (Ulrik Rgen) Phryganea maxima Scopoli, 1763 (Insecta, Plecoptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Carlo Consiglio) ; Page 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 234 237 239 242 244 246 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Myophoria kefersteini (Miinster, 1837) (Pelecypoda): ai validation under the plenary powers (N. Fantini Sestini) Macaca fuscata (Blyth, 1875): Proposed conservation as the name , for the Japanese macaque (Mammalia) (Jack Fooden) § Request for a Ruling to correct homonymy in names of the "family-groups based on Plethodus (Pisces) and Plethodon (Caudata) (Bruce B. Collette and David B. Wake) Charaxes jocaste Butler, 1865 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): ‘Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (V. G. L. van Someren) uf Comments Comments on the proposed designation of neotypes for four hemipteran . species (J. Péricart; R. C. Froeschner & J. L. Herring) ‘ Further comments on suppression of some names in the family BELONIDAE (Pisces) (Bruce B. Collette; Frederick H. Berry) Comment on the proposed Ruling on the validity of Didermacerus Brookes, 1828 (D. A. Hooijer) ae é 2 Ancistrodon versus Agkistrodon (Curtis W. "Sabrosky) Comment on the proposed suppression of Strix capensis *Daudiny 1800 (Kenneth C. Parkes) Z Comment on the proposed validation of Sterna tschegrava and Motacilla pleschanka Lepechin, “1770” (Dean Amadon) s Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for Opopsitta marshalli Tredale, 1946, and withdrawal of application (H. J. de S. Disney; I. C. J. Galbraith; Joseph M. Forshaw) ba Comment on proposed new type fixations for Crioberis Miiller and Lema Fabricius (R. A. Crowson) ee Comment on Voluta mitra (Curtis W. Sabrosky).’. Comment on the proposed addition of Phelsuma ‘ornatum Gray, 1825, to the Official Index (Amer. Soc. Ichth. & Herpet.) . Bs Comment on the proposed suppression of Hippocampus erectus Perry, 1810 (Amer. Soc. Ichth. & Herpet.) . Comment on the proposed suppression of Celia errabundus "Swellengrebel, 1925 (John E. Scanlon) . Support for the proposed addition to the Official ‘List of Biradiolites @’Orbigny & Durania Douville (Myra Keen) re Comment on the proposed suppression of Ampkisbacna mildei Peters, 1879 (Amer. Soc. Ichth. & Herpet.) . ‘ Pe © 1967. Tse INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment Page 209 209 Volume 24, Part 5 7th December 1967 pp. 257-320, 1 plate THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS Page Commission Notes. . ie ae rho a as 6 ss eo 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 .. te i Ey 8 wi ve tee BOS Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases .. ee Ae? 51-3 (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. 1967 Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Acting President: Dr. L. B. HottHuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Acting Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cutna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) ie Ln aioe (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) uly Dr. Henning Lemcne (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz JaczEwski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OsRUCHEV (Palacontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 59) Ms ane ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) ay De ONE Owen Evans (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.) (31 May ) Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) (Councillor) De Ww. ae i (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting ‘ecretary Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. L. B. Hoxtnuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Acting President) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. J. ey (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) (Councillor Dr. Carl L. Huss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Rwe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Dr. Curtis W. SABRosKy (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 24, Part 5 (pp. 257-320, | plate) Tth December 1967 Commission Notes Retirement of Dr. N. R. Stoll Under Article 3b(1) of the Constitution, Commissioner Dr. Norman R. Stoll’s membership of the Commission terminated on his 75th birthday on September 4th, 1967. Dr. Stoll, of the Animal and Plant Pathology Department, Rockefeller Institute, New York, was first appointed to the Commission on 28 June 1944, to replace the late Secretary, Commissioner Charles Wardell Stiles and has thus been a member of the Commission for 23 years. During that time he has taken a leading part in the activities of the Commission. Dr. Stoll attended the Colloquia in Copenhagen, 1953, and London, 1958, and was appointed Chairman of the Editorial Committee established by the XVth Zoological Congress in London in 1958. This Committee, under his wise guidance, prepared the definitive text for the new Code of Nomenclature. The events leading to its ultimate publication and the enormous amount of work involved are well set out in the excellent Introduction to the Code which Dr. Stoll himself wrote. Following the establishment of a Council by the new Constitution adopted for the Commission by the X VIth International Congress of Zoology in Washing- ton in 1963, Dr. Stoll was inevitably elected one of the Councillors by the Commissioners. In 1958 he was appointed to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature of which he is still a member. Dr. Stoll’s long years of service to the Commission will always be remembered and appreciated by those zoologists the world over who have followed the struggle to stabilize zoological nomenclature. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary Retirement of Dr. G. O. Evans from the Secretaryship Commissioner Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans, Secretary to the International Commission since February 1965, resigned from the Secretaryship in August 1967 following his appointment as Professor of Zoology in the University of Mary- land, U.S.A. Dr. China reverts to Acting Secretary until Dr. Evans is replaced by the Council. Death of Prof. Dr. E. M. Hering We regret to announce the death on 18 August 1967 of Prof. Dr. E. M. Hering of Berlin. Dr. Hering was a member of the Commission from November 1950 until his resignation through ill-health in April 1964. 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting.—tIn 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 Argynnis chlorodippe Villiers & Guenée, 1835 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1801. (2) Designation of a type-species for Terebratulina d’Orbigny, 1847 (Brachio- poda). Z.N.(S.) 1809. (3) Suppression of three Linnaean specific names for Brachiopods. Z.N.(S.) 1810. (4) Designations of type-species for Tintinnidium Kent, 1881 and Lepro- tintinnus Jorgensen, 1900 (Tintinnida). Z.N.(S.) 1811. (5) Suppression of Cystidea Barrande, 1868 (Cystoidea). Z.N.(S.) 1813. (6) Validation of Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1815. (7) Designation of a type-species for Lasioptera Meigen, 1818 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 1822. (8) Suppression of Epirhexis Cope, 1866 (Amphibia). Z.N.(S.) 1824. (9) Designation of a neotype for Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa). Z.N.(S.) 1826. (10) Suppression of Polanisa Walker, 1875 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1829. (11) Suppression of Gyrolepis giganteus Agassiz, 1835 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1690. c/o British Museum (Natural History), WwW. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Acting Secretary, London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on October 1967. Zoological Nomenclature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (MAMMALIA, CARNIVORA): FURTHER COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION AND RENEWED APPLICATION. Z.N.(S.) 482 (see vol. 22, pages 230-232, vol. 23, pages 67-70, vol. 24, page 3) By Helmut Hemmer (Jnstitut fiir physiologische Zoologie, University of Mainz, Germany) Concerning the Morrison-Scott’s (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 230-232, 1965) request to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature “to validate the generic name Panthera Oken, 1816, as allowed by Opinion 417, and to designate Felis pardus L. 1758, as the type-species *, there were published in this journal un- favourable comments by Hershkovitz and Dias de Avila-Pires and a consent by Tortonese. In the interest of defending zoological nomenclature against confusion it seems highly necessary to discuss these comments. The first mention of the name Panthera without any following specific name and therefore not clearly marked as a generic name may be found in Oken’s “ Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. 3 Theil, Zoologie, 2. Abth., Fleischthiere, Leipzig 1816” on page 1052 for Felis colocolo. Abbreviated to P. one finds this name further on as P. paragayensis (p. 1052) and P. mexicana (p. 1054). Hence Hershkovitz is surely right concerning the first mention of Felis colocolo, the hitherto ascribed type of Panthera Oken, in saying this is ‘‘ no generic name Panthera as used and understood by modern authors”. With regard to this the unabbreviated name Panthera with clear generic meaning followed by a specific name may be found in the ‘‘ Lehrbuch ” as Panthera americana (p. 1054) for the ocelot. Following this Oken used Panthera again in abbreviation among others for the leopard (p. 1057: “6. Art. P. varia, F. Leopardus ” for the Panthera pardus leopardus and Panthera pardus panthera (partim); p. 1058: “* 7. Art. P. vulgaris, Panthera, F. Pardus”’ for the african leopard, especially the Panthera pardus pardus from Egypt). Therefore Hershkovitz seems to be wrong in writing “‘ Felis pardus, as employed by Oken, has nothing to do with his ‘‘Panthera” and is not unequivocably the Linnean Felis pardus”’. According to Article 69 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature there is no reason why Felis pardus L. should not be designated as type-species of Panthera Oken as requested by Morrison- Scott, for Felis pardus L. obviously has been included by Oken as one species among others in his genus Panthera. Article 1 of Hershkovitz’s summary: “‘ Panthera Oken, 1816 is an undigestible artifice ’’ has to be rejected. Hershkovitz states that “‘ the most widely used name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus’. He cites as a proof for this view only three published faunal catalogues for North and South America and his own manuscript catalogue of South American mammals. Except in the monograph of Cabrera (Los Felidos vivientes de la Republica Argentina. Revista del Mus. Argent. de Cienc. Nat. “ Bernardino Riva- davia” e Inst. Nac. de Invest. de la Cienc. Nat., 6 (5), Buenos Aires 1961) of Argentine cats using Leo instead of Felis (!) for the great cats, there is no special paper on the classification of the Felidae in his list. Out of the great number of papers on this matter written by Pocock and using the name Panthera Hershkovitz cites only one of the earliest from 1916 recognizing five different genera of great cats. It seems that he has overlooked all following papers of the same author summarizing lion, tiger, leopard and jaguar under the generic name Panthera. Since Pocock’s work on “The Classification of existing Felidae ” (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 20 (119) : 329-350, 1917) giving subfamily rank to the Panthera-group there are exactly 50 years now in which the name Panthera Oken was widely used not only in special taxonomic papers as given by Haltenorth (Die verwandtschaftliche Stellung der Grosskatzen zueinander I and Il (Z.f. Sdugetierkde. 11 : 32-105 and 12 : 97-240, 1936 and 1937), Zarapkin (Zur Frage der verwandtschaftlichen Stellung der Grosskatzen zueinander. Z.f. Saugetierkde. 14 : 220-224, 1939), Leyhausen (Beobachtungen an L6wen-Tiger- Bastarden mit einigen Bermerkungen zur Systematik der Grosskatzen. Z.f. Tierpsych. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 : 46-83, 1950), or Weigel (Das Fellmuster der wildlebenden Katzenarten und der Hauskatze in vergleichender und stammesgeschichtlicher Hinsicht. Sdugetierkundl. Mitt. 9, Sonderheft, 1961), or in the fundamental Simpson’s classification of mammals (The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 83 : 1-350, 1945), but also in most of the general mammalogical and non- mammalogical literature and textbooks, as already stated by Tortonese (cited above). Therefore, article 2 of Hershkovitz’s summary: “*“ The most commonly used generic name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus” for want of any good foundation has to be rejected too. Subfamily rank was given to the Panthera-group by Pocock primarily on the basis of a character of the hyoid apparatus as Hershkovitz correctly states. But Hersh- kovitz quotes no published new investigation concerning this feature in assuming that this character “‘ now proves to be even more tenuous than has been generally sup- posed”’. Further on he is simply wrong saying: ‘‘ Other characters adduced for generic separation of great cats from small as typified by Felis catus Linnaeus, have not withstood critical review ”’. As I have shown elsewhere in detail (Hemmer, H.: Untersuchungen zur Stammes- geschichte der Pantherkatzen (Pantherinae). Part I. Verdffentl. d. Zool. Staats- sammlung Miinchen 11 : 1-121, 1966) the four species lion, leopard, jaguar and tiger belonging to one another differ morphologically as well as behaviourally from all other genera or species groups of cats to a very much greater extent than do these groups between themselves, except the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). Beside the character of the hyoidean apparatus Pocock (On the external characters of the Felidae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 19 : 109, 1917) has already described two more differences between Pantherinae and Felinae concerning the rhinarium and the claw-sheaths. Sonntag (The Comparative anatomy of the tongue of the Mammalia. VIII. Carnivora. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1923) showed a further characteristic feature in the mor- phology of the tongue. Leyhausen (Verhaltenstudien an Katzen, 1956, and: Uber die unterschiedliche Entwicklung einiger Verhaltensweisen bei den Feliden. Sdugetier- kundl. Mitt., 4 : 123-125, 1956) has published some behavioural differences (voice, eating attitude, tearing action, care of the fur). The ounce (Uncia uncia) differs enough from the taxonomically clearly defined genus Panthera to be given its own generic rank but phylogenetically related to the base of it. Therefore the taxonomic connection of these two genera may only be expressed by a higher taxonomic category than the generic one. The subdivision of the Felidae into the three subfamilies Pantherinae, Felinae and Acinonychinae seems to be fully justified (see Hemmer, l.c., especially pages 17-18). For the Pantherinae there may be given the following diagnosis: Suspensorium of the hyoid imperfectly ossified, its interior portion consisting of a larger or shorter elastic tendon. Naked area of the rhinarium not, or at most with a very narrow area, reaching to the dorsal side of the nose; rhinarium itself tolerably flat, the median area narrow without definite lateral infranarial extension. Claw sheaths well developed, both upon the outer and the inner side of the claw. Spinous patch of the tongue begins close to apex of tongue, and is restricted to the anterior part of the dorsum. In the pattern of the head and neck nowhere continuous longi- tudinal stripes but spots only. Pupil of the eye at normal light round or nearly round. Use of ‘‘ tearing action’ at eating. Care of the fur, especially concerning the face, not very thorough. Tail generally stretched out backwards in sitting or resting attitude. These explanations may show that article 3 of Hershkovitz’s summary: “* There is no strong evidence that great cats typified by the leopard, Felis pardus Linnaeus, are generically distinct from small cats typified by Felis catus Linnaeus ” has also to be rejected. In his article 4, Hershkovitz speaks of a “‘ current and spreading usage ” of the name Leo Brehm for great cats which “* promotes stability, meets with no serious objections and results in no confusion”. I can see no proof for this view of current and spreading usage of Leo. Placing the name Leo Brehm on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in place of Panthera Oken would contradict the stability Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261 of nomenclature and result in the greatest confusion. Such an unnecessary change in the name of one of the widely known genera of animals would be beyond every reasonable regulation of nomenclature. In requesting the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature to place the name Panthera Oken on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and asserting that there would be no need for this name, as he has done in his article 5, Hershkovitz himself calls for such confusion. Dias de Avila-Pires (cited above) also disagrees with Morrison-Scott. But his real problem in doing so is not a nomenclatorial one but a problem of language. His statement: ‘‘ To call a panther Leo is no more confusing than to call a lion, Panthera ” seems to be a very unrealistic argument for rejecting a well established name in favour of another one which would be in no way better according to his own view. In connection with this proposed preservation of Panthera Oken there is another problem. I have shown (Hemmer, l.c.) that the genus Panthera has to be subdivided into the two subgenera Panthera for lion, leopard and jaguar and Tigris for the tiger. The first mention of Tigris with generic meaning likewise dates from Oken, 1816, the second from Gray, 1862. As I have no firm intention of applying for a third name of Oken’s to be validated, the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature may decide which of these two names should be valid. In conclusion, I support and renew Morrison-Scott’s application for conservation of “ Panthera Oken, 1816” and request a decision on the author of the subgeneric name Tigris. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to take the following action: to use its plenary powers: (1) 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 decide on the subgeneric name Tigris between the authors Oken, 1816, and Gray, 1862. REPLY TO MAYR’S COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF PAN FROM OKEN, 1816. Z.N.(S.) 482 By Philip Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) In his comment on preservation of Pan Oken, 1816, Professor Mayr (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 (2) : 66) declares, “ to say as Hershkovitz does, that there is no need for Stability for scientific names in this area because,”—then he goes on with a direct quotation from Hershkovitz (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 (2/3) : 68), italics mine—* ‘ few anthropologists, primatologists, zookeepers, behaviorists, biomedical investigators and others using non-human primates in research ..., are zoologists ’ is an argument the force of which I fail to understand.” In his statement, Mayr first attributes to me a conclusion of his own device and which is entirely alien to anything I said or implied. He then couples it with names of scientific professions I listed in a context diametrically opposed to his peculiar interpretation. My original remarks, which Mayr obviously failed to understand, are clear and unequivocal exhortations to all who work with animals to seek stability of scientific names in harmony with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and Opinions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Pan, cited from “‘ Oken, 1816 ” (Lehrbuch Naturgeschichte . . . , usually without definite page reference) is invalid because the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature rejected Oken’s Lehrbuch for nomenclatorial purposes (Opinion 417, 1956). It has been shown that C himpansee Voigt, 1831, is the oldest available name for the chimpanzee. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967, 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature As explained in my comments, most users of Pan Oken, are not concerned or even aware of the status of the name. The vast majority tend to accept zoological names in good faith from secondary sources. To my knowledge, no author of any taxonomic list or classification which includes Pan, and no proponent of the preservation of Pan, credit this generic name to a proper source or propose that it be preserved from a binomial author, and thus placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Perhaps Mayr, Morrison-Scott, and others favouring preservation of Pan from Oken, 1816, are more concerned with the validation of Oken’s Lehrbuch than with a valid name for the chimpanzee. Surely, most opposition to the use of Pan would dissolve were this name cited from its first correct usuage for the chimpanzee, for example Palmer, 1904 (Gen. Mamm. : 508) and not from a zoologically dubious base and a nomenclatorially unacceptable work. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE GENERIC NAMES MEGALICHTHYS AND RHIZODUS (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1690 (see volume 23, pages 117-120) By E. I. White (British Museum (Natural History), London) I agree entirely with Dr. Thomson’s proposals, but the argument in favour of Holoptychus nobilissimus is incomplete as this species was originally described in 1835 as Gyrolepis giganteus L. Agassiz Poiss. Foss. 2 (1) : 175, pl. xix, fig. 13, and subse- quently replaced in 1839 by Holoptychus (sic) nobilissimus L. Agassiz, in Murchison’s Silur. Syst. : 600, pl. 11. bis., figs. 1, 2 (specific name giganteus withdrawn). The second action is illegal and must be properly put forward for the Commission to validate, particularly as the name Holoptychius giganteus was later used for another species (L. Agassiz, Poiss. Foss., Vieux Grés Rouge, : 73, 140, pl. 24, figs. 3-10). By Donald Baird (Princeton University, New Jersey, U.S.A.) Let me voice strong support for K. S. Thomson’s proposal to provide plenary sanction for the traditional application of the names Megalichthys and Rhizodus to the two most common crossopterygian fishes of the Carboniferous Period. As Dr. Thomson justly points out, senseless confusion would result if the nearly universal usage of the past century were to be upset by nomenclatural pettifoggery. His further proposal to validate current usage of the name Holoptychius is equally commendable. Confirmatory action by the Commission will be a boon to both specialist and non-specialist users of these generic names. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF STRIX CAPENSIS DAUDIN Z.N.(S.) 1692 (see volume 24, pages 34-35, 203-204) By G. F. Mees (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) Though I am not really opposed to Clancey’s proposal, the problem is more com- plicated than as presented by him, and for this reason I would consider it advisable to postpone a decision until the case has been thoroughly investigated. Some comment is necessary regarding the replacement name if Strix capensis Smith is rejected as preoccupied. Roberts (1936), and Clancey (1967) accepted Strix punctata Lichtenstein (1854) as the next available name, but this name is a nomen nudum without nomenclatural significance. Probably this is the reason for Vincent’s statement, quoted by Clancey, that: ‘ 7. punctata (Lichtenstein) does not replace T. capensis ”’; this statement is otherwise difficult to understand. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the name Strix punctata was validated by Gray (1869), whose citation shows that he used it as a substitute name for Strix capensis Smith. Though he does not expressly say so, it is evident that the substitution was made because Gray knew Strix capensis to be preoccupied. If Strix capensis Smith is rejected, the African Grass-Owl will therefore have to be called Tyto punctata (G. R. Gray, 1869). An advantage is that, as this name is solely based on plate 45 of Smith (1849), the type- locality of the species as accepted at present, remains the same. Clancey’s proposal makes sense from the purely African point of view, but it is impossible to judge it correctly without considering the Asiatic-Australian Tyto longimembris (Jerdon, 1839). In recent years there is a growing opinion that this bird is conspecific with T. capensis (Smith, 1834), an opinion to which I also incline. Where- as in Africa the species is not known to show geographical variation (four names: Strix cabrae Dubois, 1902; Tyto capensis damarensis Roberts, 1922; T. c. libratus Peters & Loveridge, 1935, and T. c. cameroonensis Serle, 1949, each based on a single individual only, are usually regarded as synonyms, cf. White, 1965), 7. longimembris has, according to the latest revisers (Amadon 1959, Mees 1964) at least five races (if Australian walleri Diggles, 1866, is recognized, and baliem Ripley, 1964, based on one specimen compared with one skin of papuensis, is accepted, there are seven). Witha range from India, China, and Formosa, to Victoria, New Caledonia and Fiji, T. longimembris is also the more widely distributed of the two. When therefore we do not restrict ourselves to Africa, but survey the species as a whole, acceptance of punctata as the valid name for the African subspecies will mean a change of a single name only, whereas conservation of capensis will result in a change of name of a widely distributed polytypic species. Though to nomenclatural discussion it is irrelevant whether a name is appropriate or not, the name /ongimembris describes excellently the most striking feature of the species, whereas combinations such as Tyfo capensis amau- ronota and Tyto capensis papuensis for birds from the Philippines and New Guinea, though accepted by Amadon & Jewett (1946), Amadon (1959), and Ripley (1964), are less satisfactory. The specific name Tyto longimembris has been in general use since 1912. Rejection of 7. capensis relieved me of the necessity of making changes in the established nomenclature of the Indo-Australian forms with which I was at the time concerned, and therefore was an obvious and logical course to take (Mees, 1964). There is a second argument in favour of suppressing the name T. capensis (Smith). It is that Smith (1834) has described, besides this species, four other owls under the specific name of capensis, so that we get: binomen as published: present allocation: Strix Capensis Smith Tyto capensis (Smith) Bubo Capensis Smith Bubo capensis Smith Noctua Capensis Smith Glaucidium capense (Smith) Otus Capensis Smith Asio capensis (Smith) Scops Capensis Smith Otus capensis (Smith) Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature It will be seen that the name capensis Smith occurs in the Striges in no less than eight genera, seven of which are currently recognized. I find this confusing and believe that we could well do with one or two less. If Tyto capensis (Smith) was the only name affected by Daudin’s name, I would, on the basis of the arguments just given, favour a shift to Tyto longimembris punctata (G. R. Gray) for the African Grass-Owl. There is, however, another pertinent side to the problem not brought forward by Clancey: Strix bubo capensis Daudin is without the slightest doubt a Bubo, and therefore the name preoccupies not only in the genus Strix, but also in the genus Bubo, invalidating Bubo capensis Smith. Presently I shall discuss the identity of Strix bubo capensis Daudin, but first atten- tion must be drawn to further confusion caused by Smith when he christened five owls capensis. Sclater (1921) was the first to observe that Otus capensis (Smith) is a secondary homonym of Otus capensis Smith. At the time, both names were in use, one as Asio capensis (Smith), the other as Otus capensis (Smith), and Sclater, as first reviser and backed by page priority, decided to retain Otus capensis (Smith), and to synonymise Asio capensis (Smith). As the name for the polytypic species previously known as Asio capensis, he introduced A. tingitanus (Loche, 1867) (after the North- African race), and in the assumption that the South-African subspecies remained without a valid name, he proposed Asio tingitanus andrewsmithi to replace Otus capensis Smith. A few months later Stresemann (1922) pointed out the existence of an older name for the South-African subspecies: Strix (Brachyotus) helvola Lichten- stein, 1842. This second change was accepted by Sclater (1924). 6 es meantime Hartert (1923) had argued the resurrection of Asio capensis mith): “Zur Nomenklatur von Asio capensis haben sich W. Sclater, Stresemann und Rothschild geaussert. Die ersteren beiden Autoren verwerfen den Namen capensis fiir unsere Asio, weil Smiths Scops capensis in der heutigen Kombination Otus capensis heisst. Dies aber ist unlogisch. ‘‘ Otus Capensis”’ Smith, die Ohreule, war ein bei seinem Erscheinen nicht vorweggenommener Name, der Name capensis muss daher fiir die kurzohrige Kapeule weiter angenommen werden und Strix (Brachyotus) helvola Licht. und ‘ Asio tingitanus andrewsmithi”’ Sclater 1922 sind Synonyme von Asio capensis capensis. Dahingegen kann die siidafrikanische Zwergohreule natiirlich nicht Otus capensis genannt werden, da dieser Name 1834 vergeben wurde, sondern muss Otus senegalensis latipennis (Kaup, 1862) genannt werden. Vgl. Vog. pal. Fauna, p. 982.” Hartert therefore reversed Sclater’s decision, accepted Asio capensis (Smith), and suppressed Scops capensis Smith in favour of the next oldest synonym, Otus senegal- ensis latipennis (Kaup). Hartert’s authority was such that he has been universally followed, even by Sclater (1930) himself. Though Hartert certainly had an amount of logic on his side, I can find nothing in the Code (Stoll & al., 1961, art. 24) that would legalise this reversal of the decision taken by Sclater, who was the first reviser. Mrs. Margaret Doyle has drawn my attention to the fact that as far as the second- ary homonymy of Otus capensis Smith and Scops capensis Smith is concerned, neither name should ever have been changed, since the two species were not, and are not, considered congeneric (see Art. 59b—"‘. . . by any zoologist who believes that the two species-group taxa in question are congeneric ”’). We return now to Strix bubo capensis Daudin. The reason this name has been largely ignored was originally, as Clancey (1967) mentioned, because it was described as a variety and not as a species. Later Sundevall (1868), in his discussion of Levaillant’s work, expressed the opinion that Levaillant’s plate 40 does not depict an African owl at all, but is Bubo bengalensis (Bubo bubo bengalensis in modern nomen- clature). Subsequently Sharpe (1875) remarked that the question was too obscure to admit of substituting Strix bubo capensis for the well-established name bengalensis, and this has been, as far as I could ascertain, the last word on the question. Levaillant was notoriously unreliable, and the inference is that he might never have seen a Bubo in South Africa, and has put in a figure of Bubo bubo bengalensis to make his book more interesting. In this particular case I think that we do Levaillant an ov Plate 3 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24 x “ettle Lf Ls Vt Ve. Upe A tee : Le Oramitiiy Aiaherde te Let AAP AECTE Hel CACLIPO Pa, ane WH We fo re Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 injustice by assuming intentional falsification. From the text it is quite clear that he regarded the European, the African and the American Bubo all as one species. As he only depicted “‘ Le Grand Duc ”’, without reference to provenance, plate 40 may well represent a European bird. This does not therefore mean that Levaillant had not met with the African species, or was not in the possession of African specimens. In Daudin’s (1800) description of Strix bubo capensis a reference to Levaillant’s plate 40 is included, but the description fits the African bird, and there is definite mention of a specimen found by Levaillant on the Elephant River. I believe to have evidence that Levaillant actually possessed a specimen from the Elephant River. The copy of Levaillant’s (1799) book in our museum is no. | of six autographed copies; it originates from the library of the well-known collector Joan Raye van Breukelerwaert. In this book, besides a black-and-white and a coloured printed copy of each plate, a number of original water colours are bound. On the first page of this volume appears in ink the following note: ‘A cet Exemplaire choisi et retouché au pinceau sur plusieurs Oiseaux de mon Cabinet ont été ajoutés beaucoup de dessins Originaux des Tétes et pieds de grandeur naturelle des Oiseaux de Proye.—Raye de Breukelerwaert.” Bound next to plate 40 is a plate of a head and a claw inscribed: ** La Téte et le Pied du Grand Duc de Grandeur Naturelle Des Bords de la Riviére des Elephans en Afrique ”’. This bird is definitely not the same as the one depicted on plate 40, and appears to represent an African individual (as head and claw only are figured, and the best distinctive character is in the pattern of the breast, it is difficult to be sure). Many of the original drawings in the book bear the indication: ‘* de mon Cabinet ”’, e.g. in the collection of Raye van Breukelerwaert, but not this one. That the specimen from which this drawing was taken was not in his collection is also clear from the fact that in the auction catalogue of his collection (Anon., 1827) no mention of it is made. It is likely therefore, that the specimen was in the collection of Levaillant, and Daudin had probably seen it there. Though the reference to Levaillant’s plate 40 makes, strictly speaking, Strix bubo capensis a composite species, it is quite evident that Daudin intended to name the African species, and in agreement with the clear intention of its author, I make the specimen from Elephant River referred to by both Levaillant and Daudin, and after which the watercolour drawing hereby reproduced (plate 3) has been made, the lectotype of Strix bubo capensis Daudin. This makes the name a senior synonym of, hence the valid name for, the species at present known as Bubo capensis Smith. Under the Code, and unless the International Commission rules otherwise, the nomenclature of the African owls under discussion stands as follows: correct name: name used previously: Tyto longimembris punctata (G. R. Gray, 1869) Tyto capensis (Smith, 1834) Bubo capensis (Daudin, 1800) Bubo capensis (Smith, 1834) Asio capensis (Smith, 1834) Asio capensis (Smith, 1834) Otus capensis (Smith, 1834) Otus senegalensis latipennis (Kaup, 1853) Postscriptum. In the assumption that Daudin’s name had been in disuse since 1875, I erred, for Neumann (1914, J. f. Orn. 62 : 35) argued in no unclear terms in favour of the name Bubo capensis (Daudin) for the African species: “‘ Daudins kurze Beschreibung ist sehr treffend und kennzeichnet ... nur den Kap-Vogel, nicht, wie Sundevall annimmt, den indischen B. bengalensis. Sundevalls Kritik ... ist hier volkommen unberechtigt”. The fact that I had originally overlooked this important reference strengthens my view given in the first paragraph of this comment, that the case must be thoroughly investigated before decisions are made. It is also significant that the leading South African ornithologists saw no objection to reproducing Levaillant’s plate 40 as of a “‘ Cape Eagle Owl ” (1964, Lantern 14 : 19). 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LITERATURE CITED AmADon, D. 1959. Remarks on the subspecies of the Grass Owl, Tyto capensis. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 56 : 344-346 AMADON, D., and Jewett,S.G. 1946. Noteson Philippine birds. Auk 63 : 541-559 ANON. 1827. Catalogue du cabinet célébre et trés renommeé d’objets d’histoire naturelle ... delaissé par feu le trés Noble Sieur Joan Raye, seigneur de Breukelerwaert : 5 Ciancey, P. A. 1967. Strix capensis Daudin, 1800 (Aves): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 34-35 Daupin, F. M. 1800. Traité élémentaire et complet d’Ornithologie 2 : 208-209 Gray, G.R. 1869. Hand-List of Genera and Species of Birds 1 : 53 HartTerT, E. 1923. Die Vdégel der paladarktischen Fauna. Nachtr. 1 : 69 LEVAILLANT, F. 1799. Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux d’ Afrique 1 : 106-107, pl. 40 LICHTENSTEIN, M. H. C. 1854. Nomenclator Avium Musei Zoologici Berolinensis : 6 Mees, G. F. 1964. A revision of the Australian owls (Strigidae and Tytonidae). Zool. Verh. 65 : 1-62 RipLey, S. D. 1964. A systematic and ecological study of birds of New Guinea. Peabody Mus. Bull. 19 : vi+87 p. Roserts, A. 1936. Ornithological notes. Ann. Transvaal Mus. 18 : 255-269 ScLaTER, W. L. 1921. Notes on some African birds, with description of a new subspecies, Tyto alba erlangeri, and Yungipicus obsoletus batesi nom. nov. Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 42 : 22-25 — 1924. Systema Avium Aethiopicarum 1 : 239 — 1930. Systema Avium Aethiopicarum 2 : 855 SHarPe, R. B. 1875. Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 2 : 27, footnote SmitH, A. 1834. African zoology (continued). S. Afr. Quart. J., April to June, 1834 : 273-320 (used was the Willughby Society edition, 1880) — 1849. Illustrations of the Zoology of South Africa 2 : pl. 45 Stott & al. 1961. Code International de Nomenclature Zoologique adopté par le XVe Congrés International de Zoologie/International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology STRESEMANN, E. 1922. Zur Nomenklatur der Gruppe “ Asio capensis”. Orn. Mber. 30 : 64 SUNDEVALL, C. J. 1868. Les oiseaux d’Afrique de Levaillant. Extrait du Rev. Mag. Zool., 1865-1868 : 80 p. Wuite, C. M.N. 1965. A revised check-list of African non-passerine birds : 192 WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR SUPPRESSION OF THE MAMMALIAN NAME DOUGLASII, PUBLISHED AS LEPUS DOUGLASII. Z.NAS.) 1696 (see volume 22, pages 190-191) By Charles A. Long (Department of Biology, Wisconsin State University, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, U.S.A.) The purposes of my application for suppression of douglasii Gray, 1837, published in the binomen Lepus douglasii, were (1) to bring this nomen oblitum to the attention of the International Commission, in accordance with the prescribed procedure in Article 23b of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; (2) to review the status of douglasii and refer it to the species Sylvilagus aquaticus (Bachman), 1837; (3) to mention a lack of ‘‘ evidence, to my knowledge, showing that douglasii is younger than aguaticus ”’; and (4) to protect well-known aquaticus from the threat of douglasii by proposing suppression of the latter. The scholarly comment of Holthuis (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 (5/6) : 281, 1966) removes the third, for he found evidence that aquaticus is the senior name. Thus, the fourth purpose, which follows from the third, is hardly necessary now. I therefore request that my application be withdrawn from plenary consideration. However, douglasii may yet prove to be the senior name or to be referable to a subspecies of aquaticus, namely Sylvilagus aquaticus littoralis Nelson, 1909. These potential problems are of no present consequence to nomenclature. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267 FURTHER COMMENT ON THE CASE OF GRACILARIA VERSUS GRACILLARIA (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1757 By Elwood C. Zimmerman (Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii) and N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) In Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 (2) : 78-79, 1967, Whalley, et al., and Common and Key have objected to our request (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 (4) : 186-187, 1966) to have the emended spelling Gracilaria accepted in place of the original form Gracillaria which various authorities have considered a mis-spelling. We wish to reply as follows: Our opinion that Gracilaria is a mis-spelling remains unchanged. Whalley, et al., state that we claim that an “ incorrect Jatinization ” is involved. In no place in our original document have we made such a statement. We cannot accept that an in- correct spelling is necessarily equivalent to an incorrect latinization. The name Gracilaria comes from the Latin racilis, and it is not a latinization of a Greek word, for example. Whalley, er al. say that there is no evidence for our opinion that Haworth mis- spelled Gracilaria as Gracillaria, because Haworth used the incorrect form several times in his original work. A mis-spelling is not made a correct spelling no matter how many times an author may use the word. Would our opponents consider the spelling moniliferus as monilliferus correct if an author used the incorrect spelling monilliferus six times or more in a publication? Is there a great difference between mis-spelling Gracilaria as Gracillaria and moniliferus as monilliferus? We have seen a recent large and important monograph by a distinguished professor in which “ sensus strictus ” is used consistently many times. Can we say that because he has used that erroneous spelling X number of times he has not mis-spelled the term? Whalley, et al., have mis-spelled one of our names! If they repeated the mis-spelling six times, that would not make their spelling correct. The number of times an author uses a spelling cannot always be used as evidence of its correctness. In response to our claim that confusion exists because of the existence in literature of two spellings for the generic name Gracilaria and Gracillaria, and two spellings for the family name, GRACILARIIDAE and GRACILLARIIDAE, Whalley, et al., say: “‘ This is an exaggeration of the position. ... No confusion has arisen as to what was intended with either spelling.” This may be true for taxonomists familiar with the insects concerned, but certainly not for cataloguers, recorders, indexers and those of us who wish to see established a firm system of nomenclature—and the question at issue is nothing but a question of nomenclature. Both of us, and we are not alone, do in fact find the situation definitely confusing, and this is the sole reason for our application. If we were to adhere to the strictest form of priority, then we would have further confusion with the generic name spelled Gracillaria and the family name spelled GRACILARIIDAE as originally formed. Surely, this would be not only confusing, but it would be wrong. We need stability in spelling. It should be noted that if the The thoughtful comments of Common and Key are appended to the article by Whalley, et al. They Say that “the family name GRACILLARIIDAE has been used Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature In our original appeal, we noted that when Zeller made the correction to Gracilaria in 1839, he did not make a separate statement saying, in effect, “‘ I am correcting the mis-spelling Gracillaria to Gracilaria because...” Our opponents believe that he should have said that he was making a correction, but there was no Code in 1839 making such a statement mandatory. That he was making such a correction is to us self-evident. We believe that Zeller made a legitimate correction, and Meyrick, a teacher of classics, rightly followed suit. In summary, we wish to say that we continue to believe that Gracillaria is a simple case of mis-spelling and thus is subject to correction under the provisions of the Code. As noted in our original document, we share the opinion of scholars who were well versed in the classics and who spelled the word correctly as Gracilaria. COMMENT ON PROPOSALS FOR STABILIZATION OF THE NAMES OF CERTAIN GENERA AND SPECIES OF HOLOTHURIOIDEA. Z.N.(S.) 1782 (see volume 24, pages 98-115) By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) Even for trained Commissioners it is often a hard job to find the winding path down to the firm bottom of intricate nomenclatorial problems. It would be a great help if all applicants would realise this fact and try to keep out of their applications everything not pertinent to the nomenclatorial problem to be discussed. Worst of all are those lengthy papers where nomenclatorial matters are mixed up with all kind of other things so that Commissioners are forced to read a whole systematic paper outside their own field in order to pick up those problems that may afford treatment. The B.Z.N. should not become a place for easy publication of systematic papers. The application by A. M. Clark and F. W. E. Rowe constitutes such a case, as I shall demonstrate in detail below. Also, their proposals are of the dangerous gross type that experience shows are apt to lead to confusion because each item tends to be shortened down too much, or to be too superficially handled. The applications by Hemming (published posthumously) that appeared in recent issues of this journal are examples of how such things should be handled, one by one, and separately. As a Commissioner, I am inclined to refuse voting on mixed applications of the type presented by Clark & Rowe. (1) Sporadipus. Fully presented except that information on established practice is lacking. (2) Thelenota. No information on the degree of usage of this name in the family STICHOPODIDAE. (3) Trepang. Fully presented. (4) Microthele. No case at all. (5) Stichopus. No nomenclatorial problem concerning Perideris. The other half of the petition concerns the possible replacement by Gymnochirota Brandt of Semperothuria or Mertensiothuria, both of Deichmann, 1958. It is not ex- plained how these latter names have already become so fully established that they warrant protection. (6) Ludwigothuria. No case. (7) Bohadschia. No case. (What is the intention of the bewildering reference to case no. 1)? (8) and (9) No case. Even, Miilleria is not proposed for the Index. (10) Fistularia. 1 fail to see any proposals concerning this name. No case. (11) Cystipus. No proposals, no case. (12) Ananus. A mere nomen dubium of no importance. No case. (13) Diploperideris. as (12). (14) Eostichopus. A nomen nudum, thus no case. (15) Cuvieria. Preoccupied. No case. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269 (16) Cladodactyla. No case. The uncertainty may be set at rest some day, but anyhow there is no danger of confusion for the time being. (17) and (18) Thyonidium and Duasmodactyla. A good case. (19) Dactylota. No case. (20) Aspidochir. A nomen dubium. No acute danger. (21) Liosoma. A completely plain case of taxonomy, not of Nomenclature. (22) Oncinolabes. As far as mollis is concerned, there might be a case here. (23) Tiedemannia. A nomen dubium. No case. As to the many specific names Proposed for suppression, only Holothuria glaberrima Cladodactyla nigricans Cuvieria Sitchaensis Holothuria Drummondi and Holothuria pellucida seem to constitute cases worthy of consideration. May I suggest that the items contained in the numbers (generic part) 1), 2), 3), 5), 17 and 18), and 22) and (specific part) 1), 14), 22), 27), 31), 32), 33) be resubmitted individually for consideration. ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED REJECTION OF COLUBER CHIAMETLA SHAW, 1802. Z.N.(S.) 1704 (see volume 22, Pages 235-236, volume 24, page 138) By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61803, U.S.A.) The recommendation by Peters (1967, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 (3) : 138) that the petition for rejection of Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802, suggests in general terms that the name Drymobius margaritiferus (Schlegel, 1837), which has been consistently used for this species for over a century, is not sufficiently widely used by non-herpetologists zoos. However as Peters points out it is not a species known in the non-herpetological literature except for a few ecological works. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON APPLICATION FOR USE OF PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE STERNA TSCHEGRAVA AND MOTACILLA PLESCHANKA LEPECHIN, 1770. Z.N.(S.) 1784 (see volume 24, pages 60—62, 204-205) By Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress An application is before the International Commission for exercise of the plenary powers to validate the two Lepechin names and to suppress and invalidate the two Pallas names applicable to the same species, all published in the same volume, Novi Commentarii Acad. Sci. Petropolitanae, vol. 14, pt. 1, bearing date on its title page, 1770. Pallas’ names were adopted by Gmelin, as first reviser in 1789 (“* 1788” Systema Naturae, 1 (2) : 603-604, 974), citing Lepechin’s names in synonymy. Pallas’ names have been in regular use at all times since. The availability of Pallas’ names is unquestioned, and under the Code their validity as the legal names of the two species seems to us not in doubt. Lepechin’s names were revived by some up- holders of page anteriority, after over a century of non-use, but were then rejected, even by many authors who did not recognize the first reviser principle, on the ground that his paper was not binominal. Nevertheless the fact remains that there is a substantial conflict of current usage requiring resolution by a decision of the Inter- national Commission. The applicants have expressly requested that the International Commission con- sider separately the status of the names of the two species, the Caspian Tern and the Pied Wheatear. While the technical situation under the rules of nomenclature is the same, the matter of usage is different and this may be pertinent on the question of suspension of the rules under the plenary powers. Hence we follow the applicants’ request in our discussion, after treating the basic situation common to both. Because of its bearing on usage, the distribution of the birds has pertinence. The Caspian Tern (in French “‘ Sterne caspienne ’’)—Sterna caspia Pallas, S. tschegrava Lepechin—is a large, well-known, virtually cosmopolitan, monotypic species; it breeds in temperate North America, and in parts of Eurasia, Africa, Australia and New Zealand; it winters into the tropics. The Pied Wheatear (in French “ Traquet pie ”’)—Motacilla leucomela Pallas, M. pleschanka Lepechin—is a small bird of restricted Palearctic distribution; as a breeder it is almost confined to the U.S.S.R., eastern Rumania, Iran and Afghanistan, with an isolated subspecies in Cyprus; in winter it occurs in north-eastern Africa and parts of southern Asia; in Western Europe it is little more than an occasional wanderer. Interest in the specific names of the Caspian Tern is thus cosmopolitan and the literature very great; interest in the names of the Pied Wheatear distinctly limited. Currently the tern is placed in the genus Hydroprogne, the wheatear in the genus Oenanthe. Publication Both pairs of names were published at the same time in one volume, dated 1770 on the title page, containing a number of articles by different members of the St. Peters- burg Academy of Sciences. Lepechin’s paper has page anteriority, and, the applicants point out, below the title of his paper there is indication that the paper was presented (“‘ exhibit ”) to the Academy on March 15, 1770, which is just about a month before the similarly indicated presentation date of Pallas’ paper. But this has no significance, for under the Code it is publication date, not date of presentation of a manuscript, or reading, that controls (Code, Arts. 8 and 9). Applicants say that the volume may not have appeared until “‘ possibly ” in 1771, but even if true, that has no relevance, as the date would equally apply to both included papers. The applicants admit that “it is not known ” whether either of the two papers was separately published and distributed on different dates before the volume appeared. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 271 Moreover, under Code Art. 21(a) the date of publication specified in the work is to be accepted, in the absence of proof to the contrary. Here there is no scintilla of evidence produced to suggest separate prior publication in parts. The internal evidence from examination of the volume Suggests continuous printing. The various articles are not only paged continuously, but printed on the same sheets as preceding articles; further (according to printing practice of that period) at the end of each page is printed the first syllable of the first word of the next page, even when that page begins a new article. Publication of the included articles on one date must therefore be presumed. The first reviser rule, Code Art. 24(a) The Code makes it plain that in a situation of contemporaneous publication the selection of the first reviser controls. This conservative rule, (also enunciated in the old Régles, Art. 28), tends to maintain usage. Gmelin (Systema Naturae 1 (2)t5 603-604, 974, “ 1788 ” [1789}) plainly acted as first reviser, selecting Pallas’ names Sterna caspia and Motacilla leucomela respectively, while citing under each species in the synonymy both Pallas’ and Lepechin’s papers and names. For about a century thereafter Lepechin’s names were ignored; Pallas’ caspia was universally employed for the tern; his /eucomela had constant use but competed with other names, in part because unrecognized polymorphism had resulted in new names for the same species. Towards the end of the 19th century advocates of “ strict priority ’ resurrected Lepechin’s names on the theory of “ page anteriority ”,—a doctrine which, for a time, had considerable currency, particularly with some ornithologists. The applicants mention three distinguished ornithologists, Hartert, Peters, and Hellmayr, who in important works, prior to the adoption of the Code, accepted Sterna tschegrava of Lepechin. What is not mentioned is that these authors were self-avowed strict Priorists who rejected the first reviser rule of the Régles and of the present Code.* As will be pointed out below, even most ornithologists who advocated “ strict priority ’’ nevertheless rejected Lepechin’s names because his Paper was clearly not in accord with the principles of Linnaean binominalism. Consistent binominalism, Code Art. 11 (c) Article 11(c) is clear that for a species-group name to qualify as available “‘ The author must have consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature in the work in which the name is published”. The requirement of consistent Linnaean binominalism was implicit in the Régles, Art. 25b.+ The applicants concede that Lepechin’s paper is not consistently binominal., What we have here is not a mere occasional deviation from consistency, but rather a failure to accept Linnaean binominalism altogether. Lepechin’s paper, entitled ‘ Descriptio quorandum animalium ”, describes only six species. Three are given “‘ names ” that are the usual pre-Linnaean polynominal diagnoses; e.g., 1, ‘‘ Parus dorso dilute caeruleo ...” etc.; 3, “‘ Tringa inferne alba, supra...” etc.; 6, “ Mus oculis minutissimis auriculis caudaque nullis...” etc. In the cases of Sterna tschegrava and Motacilla pleschanka the second word is the spelling * Hartert, Die Vogel der paldarktischen Fauna 1 : ix, 1912, states that he was a radical in nomenclature, adhering to the strictest priority, even to maintaining the original gender ending of adjectival specific names after removal to a different genus; in adopting tschegrava follow the Régles; not only was he a “ strict priorist ” but he treated as homonyms generic names that differed only in one letter. t We mention this to show that the Code provision only made more explicit what most zoologists considered the sound established doctrine. The Code Provisions are, of course, Tetrospective (Art. 86). 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in Latin letters of the Russian vernacular (given in Cyrillic before the diagnosis con- tinues). Even pre-Linnaean authors occasionally included two-word names. Ob- viously this paper does not adhere to “ binomial ” principles—to use the customary pre-Code terminology. The suggestion is advanced that these two names may be saved by subdivision (ii) of the same Article 11(c), which provides that in pre-1931 publications, when the body of the work is not binominal, names published “* in the index *’ may be available ‘if they satisfy the relevant provisions of this Article ”, and other provisions. This clause was designed, we believe, to cover certain early publications which appended to a non-binominal text an index designed to conform with the Linnaean system. The binominalism of the index is to be tested as if it were an independent work, but so judged the index itself must comply with Article 11(c) and be consistently binominal. Lepechin’s names are not saved by this clause, for: (a) His names do not appear in any index to the volume, the only “ Index ”’ being of authors and Article titles. What the applicants would treat as an index is the anonymous ‘‘ Summarium ”’ at the start of the volume, which is not an index either in substance or in form. It is a textual summary of the various included papers, written in continuous sentence (not tabular) form. (b) The ‘“‘Summarium”’ so far a it relates to Lepechin’s names does not comply with the requirement of consiste . binominalism of Article 11(c), any more than does the text; it merely repeats the same polynominal name diagnoses as the main text. The rejection of Lepechin’s names for non-binominalism is nothing novel. Since Gmelin his names have appeared in synonymy. When towards the end of the 19th century advocates of page anteriority resurrected Lepechin’s names (perhaps relying only on the synonymies), subsequent examination of his paper immediately revealed that he “was not consistently binomial’. The first edition of the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of North American Birds (1886) is the earliest publication we have found adopting Sterna tschegrava; but after published protest from the leading American ornithologist of the period, E. Coues, and an examination of the paper, the A.O.U. Committee in 1899, ‘‘ Ninth Supplement to the Check-list ”” (Auk, 16 : 99) reverted to the long-used name caspia, pointing out that Lepechin’s paper ‘ was not binomial ” and that the first subsequent author had adopted Pallas’ caspia,—a name preserved in all subsequent editions of the 4.0.U. Check-list of North American Birds (not merely in the last two, as incorrectly stated by the applicants). The most important ornithological work of this period, the tremendous multi-volume Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum (which described every known species), retained caspia, even while citing Lepechin’s name in its elaborate synonymy (vol. 25, p. 32, 1896). Numerous works establishing regional ornithological nomenclature point out the invalidity for lack of consistent ‘* binomialism ” of Lepechin’s names— long before the Code (e.g., Ridgway, Birds of North and Middle America (8): 465 footnote, 1919; R.A.O.U. Official Check-list of Birds of Australia : 19 footnote, 1926; Witherby et al. Handbook of British Birds 5 : 15, 1941). Usage As to usage there is a difference in regard to the Caspian Tern and the Pied Wheat- ear—probably because of the relatively restricted range of the latter, so we shall treat them separately. 1. Usage as to the Caspian Tern For more than a century between 1770 and the late 19th century Lepechin’s name seems never to have been adopted, and Pallas’ name caspia was universally used, judging by the extensive bibliographies in Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 25 : 32 et seq., 1896, and Ridgway, Birds of North and Middle America (8) : 463 et seq., 1919. The name caspia has continued to be used in most of the literature at all times since. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273 When the strict priorists revived tschegrava on the basis of page anteriority, even during the short period of acceptance by the American Ornithologists’ Union most North American ornithologists continued to use Pallas’ caspia; and even those few like Ridgway who had briefly used Lepechin’s name reverted to that of Pallas (see Ridgway, op. cit. supra : 465 footnote, 1919). The same was true of the British Mathews, who in 1912 had used tschegrava, and later reverted to caspia (in Systema Avium Australasianarum, 1927-1930). The fact that the prestigious Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 25, 1896 continued to use caspia, despite the attempted revival of Lepechin’s name, no doubt played a part in preserving Pallas’ name against the assault of the page anteriorists. The adoption of the Régles should have put an end to any dispute on this point. However not all ornithologists adhered to the new rules. It was Hartert (op. cit. supra, 1921) who was responsible for the revival of tschegrava in eastern Europe. He disagreed with the provisions of the Régles (without mentioning them) as to first reviser and consistent binominalism. Hellmayr and Peters, also strict priorists (see footnote supra), took the same view. Despite the merited taxonomic reputation of these three authors, it is significant that their following on the nomenclature of the Caspian Tern has been very limited. Authors writing on the ornithology of the Western Hemisphere invariably use caspia, and since the species is well-known and widely distributed the American literature is enormous. This is true not only in the vast ornithological literature of the United States which follows the A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds, but that of Canada (Godfrey, The Birds of Canada, 1966), of the West Indies (Bond, Birds of the West Indies, 1961), Middle America (e.g. Miller et al. Check-list of Birds of Mexico, 1950-1957, and all others), South America (e.g. de Schauensee, The Species of Birds of South America, 1966). In Africa almost all the literature, current as well as older, uses caspia, and this applies not only to British authors, whose books and papers are most numerous, (e.g. Sclater, Systema Avium Aethiopicarum, 1924-1930), but to French ones (e.g. Heim de Balsac and Mayaud, Les Oiseaux du Nord-Ouest de P Afrique, p. 152; Etchécopar and Hiie, Les Oiseaux du Nord de Tl’ Afrique, 1964). The current literature for Asia, largely by British authors, of course, predominantly uses caspia; but again this is not limited to British ornithologists, for the same usage is adopted in Ripley’s very important Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan, 1961, and in Delacour and Mayr, Birds of the Philippines, 1946. As noted earlier, caspia is the name used in the literature of Australasia. In Europe there is current conflict of usage. Prior to Hartert, even in Russia Pallas’ name caspia was generally used (e.g. Zarudny, Ptitsy Pskov : 57, 1910). But Hartert’s nomenclature has had a wide following in Germany and eastern Europe. However, this has not been unanimous, for we find E. Schiitz, Die Vogelwelt des Siidkaspischen Tieflandes : 79, 109, 1959 and A. Keve, Nomenclator Avium Hungriae : 46, 65, 1960, rejecting Lepechin’s names and adopting those of Pallas. For the countries of western Europe, although usage is not unanimous, the major current systematic or zoogeographic works and handbooks for Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland use Pallas’ name caspia. Therefore, Vaurie’s adoption of tschegrava in 1965, (The Birds of the Palearctic Fauna : Non Passeriformes), in the face of the provisions of the Code, brought the controversy to a head (Amadon, 1966, Ibis, 108 : 424). This protest caused Vaurie and his associates to make the application so that the International Commission might settle the question. It seems to us that current usage, whether one applies a criterion of authors or geographic distribution, plainly supports the long established name caspia. However, the applicants express the opinion that current “‘ usage is perhaps about equally divided on a world-wide basis ”. Even if this were so, we can see no advantage or justification for exercising the plenary powers to reject the familiar, legally valid, peas in favour of an invalid name lacking preponderance of usage, either current or former. 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2. Usage as to the Pied Wheatear The literature is much more limited, for unlike the cosmopolitan Caspian Tern, the Pied Wheatear has a breeding range mainly restricted to the U.S.S.R. (plus certain areas where ornithologists are few or non-existent). Unlike caspia for the tern, the name /eucomela has never had overwhelming currency. Pleschanka, to be sure, was practically unused until near the end of the 19th century, but strongly competing with leucomela during that century was another (junior) name, morio, of Hemprich and Ehrenberg (1833, Symb. Phys. Aves 1, fol. aa). The latter name was adopted by the very influential Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 25 : 32, 1881, although both leucomela and pleschanka were cited in synonymy. The real currency of pleschanka followed its adoption by Hartert (1921), in Die Vogel der paldarktischen Fauna. Added support came from Vaurie’s important Birds of the Palearctic Fauna Passeriformes 1959, which has been followed in this respect by a number of others. Russian authors today uniformly employ pleschanka. Most current works by British authors, dealing with the bird in its winter or accidental range, or as a breeder in Cyprus, use /eucomela. So do several other European authors (Voous, Atlas of European Birds, 1960). Some authors who use caspia Pallas for the tern, nevertheless, in the same work, use pleschanka Lepechin for the wheatear; e.g., Ripley, Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan, 1961; Etchécopar and Hiie, Les Oiseaux du Nord de I’ Afrique, 1964. Whether these authors decided to accept Russian preference in regard to a mainly Russian breeding bird, or whether they simply followed Vaurie as the latest work, we do not know. Further, in the recent, (1964), volume 10 of Check-list of Birds of the World (dealing with Turdinae) Ripley continues to use pleschanka (though, as pointed out, caspia is used by him for the tern). These recent publications probably will increase the use of pleschanka. Recommendations When current usage is strongly divided the major consideration is to find a solution that will have the widest (and, hopefully, universal) acceptance. In the case of such conflict in the name of a taxon of cosmopolitan distribution, (absent any element of confusion), applying the Code provisions is usually the most acceptable procedure. On the other hand, where a taxon is of restricted breeding range in an area with many interested zoologists who uniformly use a particular name, their usage and preference are entitled to considerable weight, and may justify suspension of the rules by exercise of the plenary powers. These factors lead the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature to recommend that the two cases be treated differently, despite their technical similarity, and to suggest that the International Commission: (1) Make a declaration holding that the valid specific name of the Caspian Tern is caspia Pallas, 1770, as originally published in the binomen Sterna caspia, and that such name be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; that the name tschegrava Lepechin, 1770, originally published as Sterna tschegrava, be rejected, be placed on the Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Names in Zoology, and be suppressed for purposes of the Law of Priority but not for purposes of the Law of Homonymy. (2) Exercise the plenary powers to validate as the specific name of the Pied Wheatear the name pleschanka Lepechin, 1770, originally published as Moracilla pleschanka, and that such name be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; that the name /eucomela Pallas, 1770, as published in the binomen Motacilla leucomela, be suppressed for purposes of the Law of Priority but not for purposes of the Law of Homonymy. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275 Dr. Charles Vaurie, because he was one of the applicants, withdrew from any participation in the discussion or voting of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, or in the preparation of this report. The Committee is, however, of the opinion and has reason to believe that the applicants would find the compromise recommendation here submitted to be acceptable—if adopted by the International Commission. Respectfully submitted, Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. F. Salomonsen, Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark Chairman, pro tempore, E. Eisenmann, American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A. K. H. Voous, Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. COMMENT ON THE REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION AGAINST THE SUPPRESSION OF NOMINA DUBIA. Z.N.(S.) 1714 (see vol. 22, pages 265-266, vol. 23, pages 11-12, vol. 24, page 73) By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The comment published by Commissioner Sabrosky (B.Z.N. 24 : 73) on the possible paragraph (iv) of Article 79a gives quite a good formulation which I should like to propose altered only in a single point. A name that remains a nomen dubium may still become a danger to stability if some zoologist accepts it tentatively even without properly “ discovering its identity’. So, I would feel that—if and when we are going to revise the Code once more—the proposal by Commissioner Sabrosky might be accepted without these words “ if its identity is ever discovered ”’. To me, it seems enough if the paragraph runs simply: “A name that is a nomen dubium is not to be suppressed for that reason alone ”’— possibly with the addition of “‘ but it may become so if it is found to constitute a real disturbance to stability or universality of names ”’. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR PATANGA UVAROYV, 1923. Z.N.(S.) 1761 (see volume 23, pages 235-238, volume 24, pages 130-137) By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) It seems to me that this application clearly violates Article 75. As Lindroth, Ramsbottom, Svenson, Cain and other Linnaean specialists have pointed out repeatedly, Linnaeus did not have the modern concept of type specimens as name bearers. Mr. Dirsh acknowledges this by designating the specimen of ‘‘ succinctus ” as neotype. By this action Dirsh violates two provisions of Article 75. This neotype designation is not “necessary in the interest of stability of nomenclature ” (75a) because in the present case it leads precisely to utter confusion. Since 1923 the name succinctus has been used for a typical species of Patanga and indeed succinctus, as misidentified by Uvarov, was made the type-species of Patanga. Dirsh’s action would lead to a complete shifting of names. Indeed Dirsh proposes to make succinctus the type of the genus Valanga, etc. Dirsh’s neotype transfers the name succinctus to a species for which this “‘ name is not in general use either as a valid name or as a synonym ”’ (thus violating Art. 75b). In order to avoid these confusing transfers of names and to obviate a neotype selection in conflict with the provisions of Article 75 I herewith propose that Dirsh’s neotype selection is declared as invalid and that the Commission set aside all previous designations for the species succinctus and designate as neotype the specimen selected by Dirsh as the neotype of assectator. An equally acceptable solution would be to suppress the name succinctus. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE SPELLING POLYXENUS FOR POLLYXENUS LATREILLE. Z.N.(S.) 1785 (see vol. 24, pages 63-64) By C. A. W. Jeekel (Zodlogisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) The proposal by Kraus contains a number of unsatisfactory points which deserve further consideration. Kraus’s par. 1. The importance of the name in general zoological literature seems somewhat overstated. In the taxonomic literature on Diplopoda the small subclass Pselaphognatha has been long neglected. Only since about 1950 has its study become more intensive, in particular through the work of Condé and associates. The genus Pollyxenus is apparently only a small one, and only one species, Pollyxenus lagurus (L.), which is widely distributed throughout Europe, has been cited more frequently in the European faunistic literature on Diplopoda. As an easily obtainable representative of its subclass the species has been the object of a few morphological, anatomical and ecological studies. Lacking, however, any economic significance it has been scarcely ever cited in applied zoological literature. To validate the unfortunately uncritically accepted, but wholly unjustified emenda- tion by Latzel, 1884, seems to me to be an unnecessary violation of the law of priority according to which Polyxenus Latzel, 1884, is a junior objective synonym of Pollyxenus Latreille, [1802-1803]. In my opinion such a validation undermines one of the basic principles of the Code in a case wherein by simple application of the articles a minor error in the spelling of a name can be easily corrected. In the interest of the general utility of the Code to solve quickly simple matters of priority, I feel obliged to oppose Kraus’s proposal. Kraus’s par. 4. For the family name POLYXENIDAE, Kraus cites Gray & Jones as authors and 1842 as year of publication. In the literature on Diplopoda there has been some confusion regarding the question who should be regarded as the author of the names used for the first time in the article “‘ Myriapoda ”, in R. Todd (ed.), The Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology, Vol. 3. In this article the author mentioned after the new generic names is Gray. No personal name, however, is cited after the family names. In subsequent writings most diplopodologists have cited Gray as author of the generic names, and this is also done by Neave in the Nomenclator Zoologicus. Few writers have ever cited the author of the family names POLLYXENIDAE and POLYXENIDAE. Apparently Kraus has based himself in this respect on Latzel, 1884 (Die Myriopoden der Oster-reichisch-ungarischen Monarchie 2 : 70), who cited Gray & Jones, and who has been followed subsequently by Silvestri, 1896 (Annali Mus. civ. Stor. nat. Genova 36 : 143), and Schubart, 1934 (Die Tierwelt Deutschlands 28 : 20). Unfortunately, I have no personal access to the entire article ‘‘ Myriapoda ” in Todd’s Cyclopaedia. As regards the authorship of the family names I have relied on a note by Cook, 1895 (Am. Nat. 29 : 863, footnote 4), who stated: ‘* The family * Craspedosomadae ’ was published by J. E. Gray in the article on Myriapoda by T. Rymer Jones, in Todd’s Cyc. Anat. and Physiol., III, p. 546 (1842). The author of the article specifically states that the arrangement of the Myriapoda there proposed was the work of Gray, published from his manuscripts and with his consent. Hence there is no apparent reason for citing the authority of Jones as Latzel and others have done.” Therefore, the correct citation of the new names in Todd’s Cyclopaedia seems to be: Gray apud Jones, in Todd, etc. The citation of POLYXENIDAE in Todd’s Cyclopaedia I regard as the first, and unfortunately mis-spelled, latinization of the family name Pollyxénites Lucas, 1840. It is clear that, since Latzel, 1884, is the author of the name Po/yxenus, he is likewise the author of the emended family name Polyxenidae. As year of publication of Todd’s Cyclopaedia, Vol. 3, authors have cited either 1842 or 1843. In this respect I have followed the authority of Neave, Nomenclator Zoologicus, who gives (1843) as year for the generic names. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277 Kraus correctly mentions the family-name Pollyxénites of Lucas, but erroneously gives the year of publication as 1842. Actually, however, Lucas, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Myriapodes, was first published in 1840. Kraus suggests that the name Pollyxénites was a mere generic plural, but this is not correct as Lucas proposed the name as “ Premiére Famille/Pollyxénites/Nobis.” It seems to me that the proposal by Lucas fully satisfies the provisions of the Code, and specifically of article 11(e)(iii), since Gervais, 1844 (Annls. Sci. nat., Zool (3) 2 : 60) mentioned Lucas’s Pollyxénites as the first synonym under the family name Pollyxenidae. The fact that the authorship of Lucas, or the year of publication 1840, have not been generally adopted is hardly of any significance in the present case, as the family name has been practically always quoted without author and year. More- over, the authorship of the name and the year of publication of Todd’s Cyclopaedia apparently have been generally wrongly cited. Kraus’s par. 5. In view of the above considerations the International Com- mission is asked: (1) to place the generic name Pollyxenus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Histoire nat. Crust. Ins. 3 : 45), gender : masculine, type-species by monotypy, Scolopendra lagura Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (2) to place the specific name lagura Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 637), as published in the binomen Scolopendra lagura, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the family name Pollyxénites Lucas, 1840 (Hist. nat. Crust., Arachn. Mpyriap. : 518), first, incorrect, latinization: POLYXENIDAE Gray apud Jones, 1843 (in: Todd (ed.), The Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology 3 : 546), first correct latinization: POLLYXENIDAE Gervais, 1844 (Annls Sci. nat., Zool. (3) 2 : 60), on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Polyxenus Latzel, 1884 (Die Myriopoden der 6ster- reichisch-ungarischen Monarchie 2 : 70), an unjustified emendation of Pollyxenus Latreille, [1802-1803], on the Official Index of Generic Names in Zoology; (5) to place the family name POLYXENIDAE Latzel, 1884 (l.c.), an unjustified emendation of POLLYXENIDAE Lucas, 1840, on the Official Index of Family- Group Names in Zoology. 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 829 PAPIAS GODMAN, [1900] (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 Papias Godman, [1900], made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Pamphila integra Mabille, 1891, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Papias Godman, [1900] (gender : masculine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Pamphila integra Mabille, 1891, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1770. (3) The specific name integra Mabille, 1891, as published in the binomen Pamphila integra (type-species of Papias Godman, [1900]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2213. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1682) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 77. 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 publi- cations (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 19 April 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)20 either for or against the proposals relating to Papias Godman set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl.22.: 77. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 19 July 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Vokes, Mayr, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Boschma, Obruchev, Binder, Holthuis, Uchida, Munroe, Lemche, do Amaral, Tortonese, Forest, Stoll, Mertens, Kraus, Bonnet, Ride, Evans. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Simpson. Commissioners Jaczewski and Brinck 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: integra, Pamphila, Mabille, 1891, Bull. C. R. Soc. ent. Belg. 35 : clxix Papias Godman, [1900], in Godman & Salvin, Biol. centr.-amer., Lep. Rhop. Jess) Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)20 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. 829. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 August 1967 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DECISION ON THE VALIDITY OF DIDERMOCERUS BROOKES, 1828 (MAMMALIA). Z.N.(S.) 1779 (see volume 24, pages 55-56) By Colin P. Groves (Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., U.S.A.) In a paper on the Sumatran rhinoceros (Groves, 1965, Sdugetierk. Mitt. 13 : 128-131) I used the generic name Didermocerus Brookes, 1828, for this species, follow- ing Ellerman & Morrison-Scott. However since then a study of numerous papers on fossil rhinoceroses of Europe and Asia has convinced me that to continue to use Didermocerus would result in considerable hardship. No palaeontologist uses Brookes’s name for the extinct forms related to the Sumatran rhinoceros; all of them use Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1842, and so do many neozoologists in speaking of the Sumatran rhinoceros itself. Accordingly, since Didermocerus has not gained any- thing like universal currency in spite of Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, I have reverted to Dicerorhinus in my latest paper (forthcoming in Sdugetierk. Mitt.). The question of the validity of Brookes, 1828, has a bearing also on the question of the generic name of the chimpanzee. If Pan Oken, 1816, is not validated for the chimpanzee, the name for consideration is Brookes’s Theranthropus. Whatever the comparative merits of Pan and Chimpansee, I think it will be agreed that Theranthropus is not a desirable substitute. The only problem in suppressing Brookes’s work entirely would be the name for the cheetah, Acinonyx, which could be validated by plenary powers at the same time as Brookes’s catalogue is suppressed. I would therefore strongly support Alternative B—to reject Brookes, to place Dicerorhinus on the Official List of Generic Names, and to place Didermocerus on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Names. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 830 PHANIS GODMAN, [1900], AND PHANES GODMAN, [1901] (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 Phanis Godman, [1900], and its replacement genus Phanes Godman, [1901], made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Thracides aletes Geyer, [1832], is hereby designated to be the type-species of those genera. (2) The generic name Phanes Godman, [1901] (gender : masculine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Thracides aletes Geyer, [1832], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1771. (3) The specific name aletes Geyer, [1832], as published in the binomen Thracides aletes (type-species of Phanes Godman, [1901]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2214. (4) The generic name Phanis Godman, [1900] (a junior homonym of Phanis Fairmaire, 1893) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1914. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1683) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 78. 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 publi- cations (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 19 April 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)21 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 78. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 19 July 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Vokes, Mayr, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Boschma, Obruchev, Binder, Holthuis, Uchida, Munroe, Lemche, do Amaral, Tortonese, Forest, Stoll, Mertens, Kraus, Bonnet, Ride, Evans. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Simpson. Commissioners Jaczewski and Brinck returned late affirmative votes. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281 aletes, Thracides, Geyer, [1832], in Hiibner, Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 4: 31, pl. [126], figs. 731, 732 Phanes Godman, [1901], in Godman & Salvin, Biol. centr.-amer., Lep. Rhop. 2: 741 Phanis Godman, [1900], in Godman & Salvin, Biol. centr.-amer., Lep. Rhop. 2 : 548. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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. 830. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 August 1967 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 831 TELICOTA MOORE, [1881] (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 Telicota Moore, [1881], made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Papilio colon Fabricius, 1775, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Telicota Moore, [1881] (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Papilio colon Fabricius, 1775, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1772. (3) The specific name colon Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Papilio colon (type-species of Telicota Moore, [1881]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2215. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1684) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 79. 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 publi- cations (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 19 April 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)22 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 79. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 19 July 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Vokes, Mayr, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Boschma, Obruchev, Binder, Holthuis, Uchida, Munroe, Lemche, do Amaral, Tortonese, Forest, Stoll, Mertens, Kraus, Bonnet, Ride, Evans. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Simpson. Commissioners Jaczewski and Brinck 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: colon, Papilio, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 531 Telicota Moore, [1881], Lep. Ceylon 1 (4) : 169. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 283 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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. 831. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 August 1967 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 832 ZENIS GODMAN, [1900] (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 Zenis Godman, [1900], are hereby set aside and the nominal species Hesperia jebus Plétz, 1882, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Zenis Godman, [1900] (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Hesperia jebus Plétz, 1882, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1773. (3) The specific name jebus Plétz, 1882, as published in the binomen Hesperia jebus (type-species of Zenis Godman, [1900]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2216. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1685) The present case was received as one of fourteen prepared by the late Mr. Francis Hemming. The application was sent to the printer on 4 December 1964 and was published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 80. 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 publi- cations (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 19 April 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)23 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 80. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 19 July 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Vokes, Mayr, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Boschma, Obruchev, Binder, Holthuis, Uchida, Munroe, Lemche, do Amaral, Tortonese, Forest, Stoll, Mertens, Kraus, Bonnet, Ride, Evans. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Simpson. Commissioners Jaczewski and Brinck 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: jebus, Hesperia, Plétz, 1882, Ent. Ztg., Stettin 43 : 443 Zenis Godman, [1900], in Godman & Salvin, Biol. centr.-amer., Lep. Rhop. 2 : 588 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)23 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. 832. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 August 1967 286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 833 LIMACIA MULLER, 1781 (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 Limacia Miiller, 1781, made prior to the Ruling now given are hereby set aside and the nominal species Doris clavigera Miiller, 1776, is hereby designated to be the type of that genus. (2) The generic name Limacia Miiller, 1781 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Doris clavigera Miiller, 1776, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1774. (3) The specific name clavigera Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Doris clavigera (type-species of Limacia Miiller, 1781) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2217. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1665) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Henning Lemche in September 1964. Dr. Lemche’s application was sent to the printer on 29 September 1964 and was published on 18 May 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 100. 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 Prof. H. Engel, Dr. J. Nijssen-Meyer and Mr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 19 April 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)25 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 100. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 19 July 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—eighteen (18), received in the following order: China, Vokes, Mayr, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Boschma, Obruchev, Holthuis, Uchida, Lemche, Munroe, do Amaral, Tortonese, Forest, Stoll, Bonnet, Ride, Evans. Negative votes—three (3): Binder, Mertens, Kraus. Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Simpson. Commissioners Jaczewski and Brinck returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners returning negative votes: Dr. E. Binder (24.v.67): “As Dr. Lemche puts it, Limacia was a completely forgotten name for 170 years, from 1781 to 1959, and it should have remained so. The purpose of the Commission’s plenary powers is to promote stability in exceptional cases where this is not achieved by applying the rules; it is not to sanction the unearthing of never-used names.” Dr. Otto Kraus (17.vii.67): ‘“ All problems are solved by the designation of Doris clavigera Miiller, 1776, as type-species of Limacia. An earlier selection of a generotype, which would upset the present one, is not known—even to the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287 applicant. Since there are no other problems, I cannot find any reason for an action by the Commission. The argument that there might (!) be an ‘ un- detected earlier and inadequate type designation ’ should not be a reason for the Commission to ‘ use its plenary powers to set aside all [potential] type- designations for the nominal genus... . . ” as ‘a safeguard ’, as is requested by Dr. Lemche.”’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: clavigera, Doris, Miiller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. - 229 Limacia Miiller, 1781, Zool. dan. (ed. 2) (Danish edition) 1 : 65. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)25 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. 833. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 September 1967 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 834 TIPULA NUBECULOSA MEIGEN, 1804 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES RULING.—(1) The use of the plenary powers to suppress the specific name nubeculosa Meigen, 1804, as published in the binomen Tipula nubeculosa, is hereby refused. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) hortorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Tipula hortorum (Name No. 2218); (b) nubeculosa Meigen, 1804, as published in the binomen Tipula nubeculosa (Name No. 2219). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 895) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission in 1955, by Dr. Henning Lemche and Dr. A. M. Hemmingsen. A revised application was submitted in September 1964, sent to the printer on 29 September 1964 and published on 5 April 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 53-54. 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 publi- cations (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21: 184) and to six entomological serials. The application was opposed by Dr. Bo Tjeder (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 280) who advocated that the Rules be applied. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 19 April 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)24 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 53-54. Commissioners were informed that those who voted against the use of the plenary powers as proposed by Drs. Lemche and Hemmingsen would be assumed to have voted for Dr. Tjeder’s proposals. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 19 July 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—eight (8), received in the following order: Mayr, Binder, Holthuis, Munroe, Lemche, Tortonese, Bonnet, Ride. Negative votes—thirteen (13): China, Vokes, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Boschma, Obruchev, Uchida, do Amaral, Forest, Stoll, Mertens, Kraus, Evans. Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Jaczewski, Simpson. Commissioner Brinck returned a late negative vote. In returning his vote Dr. Sabrosky made the following comment. ‘‘ Mannheims (1933) over thirty years ago did a thorough job based on type material, and I believe this should be followed. The species is too unimportant to preserve the incorrect identi- fication of Schummel.”’ Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: hortorum, Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 585 nubeculosa, Tipula, Meigen, 1804, Klass. Beschr. Zweifl. Ins. : 70. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)24 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper for the use of the plenary powers was not adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 834. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 September 1967 290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ARGYNNIS CHLORODIPPE VILLIERS & GUENEE, 1835 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1801 By N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) In 1835 (Tab. syn. Lep. Europe: 56) Villiers and Guenée described, as a species occurring in Sicily, a variety of the well-known High Brown Fritillary Argynnis adippe Schiffermueller, 1775, and gave to it the name Argynnis chloro- dippe. It was in fact the well-known form of A. adippe in which the silver markings of the undersides of the wings are replaced by buff, a form which had already been described by Ochsenheimer (1816, Schmett. Eur. 4: 118) as Argynnis cleodoxa. 2. In 1851 (Syst. Schmett. Europe 6 : 5) Herrich-Schaeffer described the very different and distinct subspecies of Argynnis adippe that occurs in Spain, also under the name Argynnis chlorodippe, being apparently unaware of the existence of the name Argynnis chlorodippe Villiers and Guenée. 3. Consistently since 1851 the Spanish subspecies of A. adippe has always been known either as Argynnis adippe chlorodippe H.S. or as a distinct species as Argynnis chlorodippe H.S. to all students of the European Rhopalocera. I can find only one reference to Argynnis chlorodippe Villiers and Guenée, namely by W. F. Kirby who simply lists it in his Synonymic Catalogue of Diurnal Lepi- doptera (1891 : 158). I know of no case in which the name has been used in a taxonomic or faunistic paper dealing with the butterflies of any part of Europe or with Argynnis adippe in particular. Nevertheless it is a senior primary homo- nym of A. chlorodippe Herrich-Schaeffer. 4. Argynnis adippe is not a butterfly of any economic importance or great biological interest, yet it is one of the best known of European butterflies. It would seem a pity to allow a long forgotten senior homonym to supplant the very familiar name, chlorodippe H.S., of its most striking subspecies. Accord- ingly I invite the International Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name chlorodippe Villiers and Guenée, 1835, as published in the binomen Argynnis chlorodippe, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name chlorodippe Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851, as publi- shed in the binomen Argynnis chlorodippe, 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. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291 HETEROTIS EHRENBERG, 1829, AND CLUPISUDIS SWAINSON, 1839 (PISCES): PROPOSAL TO PLACE ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 1807 By F. d’Aubenton and J. Daget (Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer, Paris) The object of the present application is to request the Commission to confirm the validity of the generic names Heterotis Ehrenberg in Riippell, 1829 and Clupisudis Swainson, 1839. History of the Case: 2. In 1817 Cuvier (Régne Animal (ed. 1) 2 : 180) defined a new genus Sudis without including any nominal species init. The same generic name had already been introduced validly by Rafinesque in 1810 (Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di animali e piante della Sicilia: 60) for an entirely different fish. During an expedition to Egypt made during the years 1820-1825, C. G. Ehrenberg recorded a fish from the Nile which he called Heterotis niloticus and of which he had made a plate dated 1827*. 3. However neither the name nor the plate were published at this date and Ehrenberg was content to leave his discovery to ichthyologists of the period: Cuvier, Valenciennes and Riippell. [It was not until 1836 that he himself used the name Hererotis niloticus in Abh. phy-Kl. K. Ak. Wiss. Berlin, 1834 : 532.] Actually Cuvier in 1829 (Régne Animal, (ed. 2), 2 : 180) recorded the species under the name Sudis niloticus Ehrenberg at the same time as a species from Senegal and one from Brazil which he named Sudis adansonii and Sudis gigas respectively. Since no type-species was designated at the time, these three nominal taxa were equally acceptable for a subsequent designation of the type-species of Sudis Cuvier, 1817 (non Rafinesque, 1810). All authors have followed one another in recognizing the validity of the specific name niloticus published for the first time by Cuvier in 1829 and attributed explicitly by him to Ehrenberg. 4. The same year but a little later, Riippell (1829, Beschreibung und Abbildung mehrerer nuer Fische im Nil endeckt: 10) gave a detailed description of the species which he named Sudis niloticus. In a footnote the same author added: “‘ Da ubrigens gerade Herr Valenciennes meine hier zu beschreibende Sudisart von dem Heterotis niloticus des Herrn Dr. Ehrenberg verscheiden glaubt, welches durchaus irrig ist.” This citation of an available specific name in conjunction with a new generic group name constituted an indication in the sense of Article 16 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and renders available the generic name Heterotis Ehrenberg in Riippell, 1829. Helicobranchus, * This plate on which is printed “ad Nat. del C. G. Ehrenberg” and “‘ F. W. Linger jun. Sculp, Berlin 1827 ” was not actually published until 1899 in a posthumous work of Hemprich and Ehrenberg entitled: Symbolae physicae.... The legend of the plate, drawn up by Hilgendorf, bears the title: Hererotis nilotica H. et E. Heterotis niloticus Ehrenberg’’. Tt represents, in left lateral view, an individual measuring 33 cm. in standard length and 37 cm. in total length. Small figures indicate the number of rays observed on the fins of the form: P.11; V.6: D.34: A.37; C.14. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. 292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature proposed by Hyrtl in 1854 (Denkschr. Ak. Wien. 8 : 86) as a more correct name for Heterotis is an unnecessary new name and falls as a synonym of Heterotis Ehr. in Rippell. 5. For the genus Sudis Cuvier, 1817, non Sudis Rafinesque 1810, Swainson in 1839 (Natural History of Fishes .. . 2 : 286) proposed the replacement name Clupisudis. In virtue of Article 67 i of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature this generic name must have applied to it the same type-species as that of the replaced name, Sudis Cuvier, 1817. This last has been designated by Jordan (1917, The genera of Fishes 1 : 99), who wrote: ‘* Sudis Cuvier, 1817, type (not named) Sudis gigas Cuvier.” The generic names, Arapaima J. Miiller, 1843 (Beitrdge zur Kentniss der natiirlichen Familien der Fische : 326) and Vastres Valenciennes, 1846 (Hist. naturelle des Poissons 19 : 433) also proposed as replacement names for Sudis Cuvier, 1817, are junior synonyms of Clupisudis Swainson, 1839. Gender and termination of the root to be employed in the formation of derivatives: 6. The word Heterotis alludes to the suprabranchial organ. Valenciennes, 1846 (Hist. Poiss. 19 : 465) writes: ‘“‘ M. Ehrenberg le croyant une annexe de Voreille, imagina ... de désigner son poisson par la dénomination Heterotis.” This name has been formed from two greek words étepov and ove, @téc, then latinized into -is. Now latin words ending in -is, of the third declension, are masculine or feminine and are declined like /apis, lapidis or like collis, collis. In choosing niloticus as the name of the species, it is clear that Ehrenberg intended to give to Heterotis the masculine gender and that Hilgendorf (in Hemprich and Ehrenberg, 1899) was in error in writing “ Heterotis nilotica H. & E.” The same author in the legend to plate IX, writes in the genitive Heterotis niloticae while on the plate itself one finds Heterotidis niloticae. The correct form of the genitive being Heterotis, the name of the family-group corresponding should be spelled HETEROTIDAE; similarly the family-group name derived from Clupisudis should be spelled CLUPISUDIDAE. These two names were published in this form simultaneously by Jordan (1923, A classification of Fishes: 123). Type-species and synonymies 7. Heterotis niloticus being the single nominal species originally included in the genus Heterotis, it follows that Sudis niloticus (Ehrenberg) Cuvier, 1829 is the type-species by monotypy. The type of the species cannot now be found in the Berlin Museum. Dr. C. Karrer writes in a letter of 6.4.1967: “In unserem Eingangskatalog ist unter der Nr. 3935 ein von Hemprich und Ehren- berg gesammeltes Exemplar als Trockenpraparat aufgefiihrt, tragt oben hier kein Typuszeichen ... Unter den jetzt noch vorhandenen Trockenpraparaten befindet es sich aber leider nicht mehr.”’ Consequently of the type specimen (or syntype specimens), on which the nominal species Heterotis niloticus was founded, there remains only the plate engraved in 1827, with which to identify the taxon. By the application of Article 74b of the International Code we designate this figure to represent the lectotype of the species which must be validly designated by the binomen Heterotis niloticus (Ehrenberg in Cuvier), 1829. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293 8. Sudis adansonii Cuvier, 1829 and Heterotis ehrenbergii Valenciennes, 1846 are subjective synonyms. Actually the type of Sudis andansonii is a specimen from Senegal collected by Adanson and deposited in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, as No. 3608, while the types of Heterotis ehrenbergii are two specimens from the Nile collected by Darnaud and deposited in the Paris Museum as No. A 824 and B 2221. 9. Sudis gigas is the type-species of the genus Clupisudis by the subsequent designation of Jordan. Now the specific name gigas was published for the first time not by Cuvier himself in 1829 but by Schinz (H. R.) in a german translation of the first edition of the Régne Animal (1822, Das Thierreich 2 : 305). Schinz made reference to the figure published under the name Vastrés given by Cuvier in 1817 (Régne Animal 4, pl. X, fig. 4) and which represented a specimen from Brazil presented by the Cabinet of Lisbon in 1808. This specimen preserved in the Paris Museum as No. A 8837 is the type of the species which must be validly designated by the binomen Clupisudis gigas (Schinz in Cuvier), 1822. 10. Vastres cuvieri Valenciennes, 1846 (Hist. Poissons19 : 441) is an objective synonym of Clupisudis gigas. Vastres mapae Valenciennes, 1846 (Hist. Poiss. 19 : 449) is a subjective synonym of which the type, collected in Guiana by Pradier, is preserved in the Paris Museum as No. A 8836. Sudis pirarucu Spix, 1829 and Vastres agassizii Valenciennes, 1846 are subjective synonyms both having for type the figure published by Spix (1829, Selecta genera et species. . ., pl. 16). Finally Vastres arapaima Valenciennes, 1846 (Hist. Poiss. 19 : 461) is equally a subjective synonym having for its type the figure published under the name Sudis gigas by Schomburgk (1841, The Natural History of the Fishes of Guiana 1, pl. xi). 11. In conclusion the International Commission of Zoological Nomen- clature is requested: (1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the following names: (a) Heterotis Ehrenberg in Riippell, 1829 (gender : masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Sudis niloticus Ehrenberg in Cuvier, 1829; (b) Clupisudis Swainson, 1839 (gender : masculine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Jordan, 1917, for Sudis Cuvier 1817, Sudis gigas Schinz in Cuvier, 1822; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the following names: (a) niloticus Ehrenberg in Cuvier 1829, as published in the binomen Sudis niloticus (type-species of Heterotis Ehrenberg in Riippell, 1829); (b) gigas Schinz in Cuvier, 1822, as published in the binomen Sudis gigas (type-species of Clupisudis Swainson, 1839); (3) to place on the Official List of Family-Group names in Zoology the following names (Pisces, Osteoglossiformes): (a) HETEROTIDAE Jordan 1923 (Class. Fish. : 123), (type-genus Heterotis Ehrenberg in Riippell, 1829); (b) CLUPISUDIDAE Jordan 1923 (type-genus Clupisudis Swainson, 1839). 294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TEREBRATULINA D’ORBIGNY, 1847 (BRACHIOPODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.NAS.) 1809 By C. H. C. Brunton and L. R. M. Cocks (British Museum (Natural History), London) Purpose of the Application: This application proposes to clear the difficulty created by the change in the description by Linnaeus to his species Anomia caputserpentis in 1758 and 1767. This species, sensu 1767, is the type-species of the genus Terebratulina d’Orbigny, 1847, and synonymous with the species Anomia retusa Linnaeus, 1758. Thus, as a result of d’Orbigny’s misidentification of A. caputserpentis we wish to change the type-species of Terebratulina from A. caputserpentis Linnaeus, 1758, to A. retusa Linnaeus, 1758. History: 2. This application arises from the recent review of the brachiopods in the Linnaean Collection (Brunton, Cocks and Dance 1967). 3. In the tenth edition of the Systema Naturae Linnaeus erected the species Anomia caputserpentis (1758 : 703, species number 200), describing it as follows: “A. testa ovata laevi gibba: valvula altera apice longiore. Column. purp. 22.f.1. Habitat ... fossilis. Natium altera postice gibba perforata.” In the same publication (1758 : 701, number 191) Linnaeus erected the species Anomia retusa, with the following description: ‘‘ A. testa obovata striata retusa: convalle longitudinali, nate performata. Habitat in pelago Norvegico supra Alcyonia. D. Pennant.” The two species are distinctive; the former being a smooth shelled fossil species and the latter a strongly ribbed living species. 4. Specimens of both these Anomia species are preserved in the Linnaean Collection and are those isolated by Hanley after the publication of his Jpsa Linnaei Conchylia (1855). Two specimens of A. caputserpentis Linnaeus, 1758, are preserved in oolitic calcareous matrix and there are four specimens of A. retusa Linnaeus, 1758, from Recent seas. Lectotypes for both species have béen selected and figured (Brunton, Cocks and Dance, 1967). 5. Inthe twelfth edition of the Systema, Linnaeus (1767 : 1153) changed his description of A. caputserpentis to: “A. testa obovata striata tomentosa: valvula altera nate longiore perforata. Fn. suec. 2154. Column. purp. 22.f.2. Gualt. test.t. 96.f.D. Habitat in abysso M. Norvegici. Testa obovata, tomentoso, antice compressa, longitudinaliter striata, alba. Valvula superior postice prominens longiorque apice perforato ligamento affixo coralliis Zoo- phytisve; haec antice paulo longior & declinata. Inferior valvula rotundata, antice retusa, postice brevior. Margo utriusque crenulatus. Cardo dente utriusque testae utrinque ad latus prominens,” while that of A. retusa remained unchanged. Thus in the 1767 edition these two species appear to be indistin- guishable and this change in concept of A. caputserpentis has resulted in ambi- guity. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295 6. In 1847 d’Orbigny erected the genus Terebratulina with Anomia caputser- pentis as type-species. D’Orbigny clearly thought of this as the species as redefined in 1767, i.e. the species subsequently considered as synonymous with Anomia retusa, because he illustrated a brachial valve interior (1847, pl. 7, fig. 17) which is closely comparable to Recent A. retusa now in the Linnaean Collection. This internal morphology is not what we should expect to see within the smooth shelled fossil species A. caputserpentis Linnaeus, 1758. 7. Most subsequent authors (Hanley 1855 : 123; Davidson, 1856 : 17) have recognised that A. caputserpentis Linnaeus, 1767, is synonymous with A. retusa Linnaeus, 1758. Dall (1920 : 296) also recognised this, but is in error to place A. retusa as the type-species of Terebratulina without further discussion. 8. Since the erection of the genus Terebratulina d’Orbigny there has been no doubt as to its definition and the smooth species Anomia caputserpentis Linnaeus, 1758, could never be accommodated within this genus. However, despite the work of Dall (1920) and Thompson (1927 : 186) who stressed that Anomia retusa should be considered the type-species of Terebratulina, the original name given by d’Orbigny remains in use. 9. We are now in the situation where it is generally agreed that Anomia caputserpentis Linnaeus, 1758, is not of the genus Terebratulina d’Orbigny; A. caputserpentis Linnaeus, 1767 = A. retusa Linnaeus, 1758 ; and that d’Orbigny’s original concept of the genus Terebratulina is based upon the living species A. caputserpentis Linnaeus, 1767 [non 1758] which is the junior synonym of A. retusa Linnaeus 1758. 10. Thus, we feel it to be desirable to propose that the type-species of Terebratulina d’Orbigny, 1847, be changed from Anomia caputserpentis Linnaeus, 1758, to Anomia retusa Linnaeus, 1758. This disposes of the ambiguity which was originally caused by Linnaeus himself when he altered his definition of A. caputserpentis between 1758 and 1767. Proposals 11. Therefore we request the International Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all designations of type-species for Terebratulina d’Orbigny, 1847, and (b) having done so to designate as the type-species of Terebratulina d’Orbigny, 1847, the nominal species Anomia retusa Linnaeus, 1758; (2) to place the generic name Terebratulina d’Orbigny, 1847 (gender : femi- nine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name Anomia retusa Linnaeus, 1758, type-species of Terebratulina d’Orbigny, by the plenary powers of 1(b) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Brunton, C. H. C., Cocks, L. R. M. and Dance, S. P. 1967. Brachiopods in the Linnaean Collection. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. 178 : 161-183, pls 14 Dati, W. H. 1920. Annotated list of the Recent Brachiopoda in the collection of the United States National Museum, with descriptions of 33 new forms. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., 57 : 261-377 296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Davipson, T. 1851-86. A monograph of the British fossil Brachiopoda. Palaeon- togr. Soc. [Monogr.]}, 6 vols Haney, S.C. T. 1855. Jpsa Linnaei Conchylia, pp. 1-556, pls 1-5. London LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema naturae, sive Regna tria Naturae systematice proposita per Classes, Ordines, Genera et Species, 10th edition, Tom 1: Regnum Animale, pp. (ii) 1-824. Stockholm — 1767. Systema naturae, sive Regna tria Naturae systematice proposita per Classes, Ordines, Genera et Species, 12th edition, Tom 1, part 2: 533-1327. Stockholm OrsiGny, A. d’. 1847. Considérations zoologiques et géologiques sur les brachi- opodes ou palliobranches. Annis Sci. nat., Paris, sér 3, 8 : 241-270, pl. 7 THompsoN, J. A. 1927. Brachiopod morphology and genera (Recent and Tertiary), Man. N.Z. Brd Sci. Art, 7 : 1-338, pls 1-2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 297 PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THREE SPECIES NAMES OF BRACHIOPOD ERECTED BY LINNAEUS (1758). Z.N.(S.) 1810 By C. H. C. Brunton and L. R. M. Cocks (British Museum (Natural History), London) Purpose of the present application This application proposes to place on the Official Index of Rejected Specific names the species Anomia striatula Linnaeus, 1758, Anomia lacunosa Linnaeus, 1758, and Anomia hysterita Linnaeus, 1758, as they are no longer in common use and because they would be senior synonyms of very well known species. History 2. This application arises from a review of all the brachiopod specimens in the Linnaean Collection (Brunton, Cocks and Dance 1967), and the illustration, in many cases for the first time, of the types of Linnaeus’ brachiopod species. Each of the species we propose for rejection will now be dealt with in turn. (i) Anomia striatula 3. Linnaeus erected this species in 1758 (page 702, number 194) without illustration and with the following brief diagnosis “A. testa subrotundo- dilatata utrinque gibba striata, valvis aequalibus. Habitat ... fossilis. Testa rotundata, sed duplo latior quam longa, postice gibbosiore, antice margine tenui.” This diagnosis was repeated without change in the 12th edition apart from the last word “* tenuit.’” Other than Hanley (1855), who isolated a single specimen from the Linnaean collection “‘ with doubt ” as the representative of this species, no-one to our knowledge has quoted the species since its original erection. The specimen thus labelled in the Linnaean collection is a Carboni- ferous enteletacean, undoubtedly attributable to the species Conchyliolithus (Anomites) resupinatus Martin, 1809, plate 49, figs 13 and 14, the type-species of the genus Schizophoria King, 1850 : 106, in itself the nominal genus for the sub- family SCHIZOPHORIINAE Schuchert and Levene, 1929. Schizophoria resupinata is a very well-known species and extensively quoted in the literature. In fact, owing to dispute over the validity of Martin’s original work, the species resupin- atus is already on the Official List of Specific Names, name no. 734, as a result of Opinion 419 of the Commission (1956). Thus to revive A. striatula would reverse this Opinion, and would in any case serve no useful purpose. (ii) Anomia lacunosa 4. Linnaeus (1758 : 702) erected the species as follows: ‘‘ A. testa subro- tunda multisulcata: valvulis apice plicatis; altera breviore lacunosa, apice quadridentata. Mus. Tessin... t.5.f.6. List. angl. 249.t.9. f.57._ Grew. mus.t. 19.f.6. Habitat... fossilis.’ He repeated this without change in 1767. In fact the species was used by three Swedish authors in the early nineteenth century Wahlenberg (1821 : 67), Dalman (1828 : 139, plate 4, fig. 1) and Hisinger (1837 : 80, plate 23, fig. 3) and Dalman illustrated material in all respects similar to the specimens today preserved in the Linnaean collection labelled as A. Buil. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature lacunosa. These are, however, not similar to the three figures quoted by Lin- naeus in his original description, which, although they may be ascribed generally to the order Rhynchonellida, are other genera than Linnaeus’s specimens or Dalman’s figures. Meanwhile, after Linnaeus’s description, but before the three Swedish authors, J. Sowerby (1816: 38, plate 118, fig. 3) had erected the species Terebratula wilsoni, from the Upper Silurian, since made the type-species of the genera Wilsonia Kayser, 1871 (non Ridgway 1823), Wilsonella Nikiforova, 1937 (non Carter 1885) and Sphaerirhynchia Cooper & Muit-Wood, 1951, in turn. There is no doubt that A. lacunosa and S. wilsoni are conspecific as the species is readily distinguishable from other rhynchonellids of the same age even though the types of the former come from Gotland and the latter from Britain. 5. Sowerby’s name has been used for the species in question ever since the publication and popularity of “ The Silurian System ” (Murchison 1839) and A. lacunosa has not been used since the middle of the last century. In fact the last mention of A. lacunosa which we can find is by Lindstr6m (1860 : 366), who, in describing the Gotland fauna, actually put “ Ter. Jacunosa WAHLENB.”’ [sic] as a synonym of wilsoni. 6. Thus we propose that Anomia lacunosa should be put on the Index of rejected names, not merely because of its long lack of use, but because S. wilsoni is so widely known, not only amongst palaeontologists, but amongst strati- graphers as well. For example the Wilsonia Shales (Ludlow) of Breconshire and the Wilsonia wilsoni Grits (Ludlow) of Montgomeryshire are both named after the species in question. (ili) Anomia hysterita 7. Linnaeus erected this species in 1758 (page 703, number 203) giving the following diagnosis: ‘‘ A testa dilatata laevi convexa striata subtriloba, antice depressa, margine acuto. Mus. Tess. 90.t.5.f.1,2,2. Column purp. 22.f.3? Trilobos. Wolff. hass. 29.t.3.f.3,4,5.. Worm.mus.t.83. Habitat ... fossilis.” No descriptive change was made in the twelfth edition of 1767. 8. Baumer, in 1763, figured a specimen called hysterita which depicted the internal mould of a Schizophoria—like brachiopod comparable to the single Anomia hysterita specimen now in the Linnaean Collection (See Brunton, Cocks and Dance, 1967 : 164). 9. From the figures quoted by Linnaeus in 1758 it is clear that his interpreta- tion of Anomia hysterita was very broad, and the name was possibly given to any specimen preserved as an internal mould. Hanley (1855) curated three speci- mens under this name, but he recognised that two distinct species were involved ; two specimens being internal moulds of spiriferaceans and the third being the Schizophoria species to which we believe Linnaeus first attached the name hysterita, and which has been selected as lectotype. 10. Probably because of its confused introduction to the literature the name Anomia hysterita has seldom been used and the only record of its use this century that we can find is in a general paper by Schmidt (1935 : 27). In this paper the name “ Schizophoria hysterita” is given as caption only to an illustra- tion of an enteletacean brachiopod like that illustrated by Baumer. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 299 11. Schlotheim erected the species Hysterolithes vulvarius in 1820 (:247) for a Devonian Schizophoria. Two of Schlotheim’s original specimens remain in the Humboldt-University of Berlin, one of which retains the original Schlotheim label bearing the specific name. A study of these specimens con- vinces us that they can be regarded as conspecific with the specimen called A. hysterita in the Linnaean Collection. 12. In Central Europe Schizophoria vulvaria (Schlotheim) is a well known species from the Lower Devonian and the name is entrenched within the litera- ture. To insist that the species A. hysterita in the Linnaean Collection was certainly the specimen held by Linnaeus and that it was, therefore, senior synonym of S. vulvaria (Schlotheim 1820) would cause considerable confusion if the Law of Priority were strictly applied. 13. Thus, we propose that the name Anomia hysterita be put onto the Index of rejected Names, both because of its long lack of usage and in order to main- tain the validity of the well known name vu/varia in the interests of stability. Proposals 14. We request the International Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the Puposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo- nymy: (a) striatula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Anomia striatula; (b) Jacunosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Anomia lacunosa; (c) hysterita Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Anomia hysterita; (2) to place the three specific names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) wilsoni J. Sowerby, 1816, as published in the binomen Terebratula wilsoni; (b) vulvarius Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the binomen Hystero- lithes vulvarius. REFERENCES Baumer, J. W. 1763. Naturgeschichte des Mineralreichs mit besonderer Anwendung auf Thiiringen, 2 vols, pp. 1-64, illustr. Gotha Brunton, C. H. C., Cocks, L. R. M. and Dance, S. P. 1967, Brachiopods in the Linnaean Collection. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond., 178 : 161-183, pls 14 Daman, J. W. 1828. Uppstallning och Beskrifning af de ij Sverige funne Tere- bratuliter. K. svenska Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. (for 1827): 85-155, pls 1-6 Haney, S.C. T. 1855. Ipsa Linnaei C onchylia, pp. 1-556, pls 1-5. London HISINGER, W. 1837-41. Lethaea Svecica, seu Petrifacta Sveciae. Stockholm Kinc, W. 1850. A Monograph of the Permian fossils of England. Palaeontogr. Soc. [Monogr.], pp. (xxxvii) 1-258, pls 1-28 x LINDsTROM, G. 1860. Bidrag till Kannedomen om Gotlands Brachiopoder. Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Forh., 17 : 337-382, pls 12-13 300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae, sive Regna tria Naturae systematice proposita per Classes, Ordines, Genera et Species, 10th edition, Tom 1: Regnum Animale, pp. (ii) 1-824. Stockholm — 1767. Systema naturae, sive Regna tria Naturae systematice proposita per Classes, Ordines, Genera et Species, 12th edition, Tom 1, part 2: 533-1327. Stockholm Martin, W. 1809. Petrificata derbiensia: or figures and descriptions of petrifactions collected in Derbyshire. 28 pp. 52 plates. Wigan Murcuison, R. I. 1839. The Silurian System, pp. 1-768, pls 1-37. London SCHLOTHEIM, E. F. von. 1820. Die Petrefaktenkunde auf ihrem Jetzigen Standpunkte durch die Beschreibung seiner Sammlung versteinerter und fossiler Uber reste des Thier- und Pflanzenreichs der Vorwelt, pp. (xlii) 1-437, illustr. Gotha Scumipt, H. 1935. Einfiihrung in die Palaeontologie, pp. 1-253, illustr. Stuttgart Sowersy, J. 1812-1822. The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, 4 vols, illustr. London WAHLENBERG, G. 1821. Petrificata Telluris Svecanae examinata. Nova Acta R. Soc. Scient. upsal., 8 : 1-116, pls 1-7 (for 1819) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301 TINTINNIDIUM AND LEPROTINTINNUS (ORDER TINTINNIDA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N((S.) 1811 By Helen Tappan (University of California, Los Angeles, California) and Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr. (Chevron Research Company, La Habra, California) The purpose of this proposal is to maintain the current usage of the generic name Tintinnidium Kent, 1881, with its type-species 7. fluviatile (Stein) Kent, 1881, as designated by Kofoid and Campbell, 1939 (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard 84 : 36) against the prior designation of 7. marinum Kent, 1881 as type-species by Brandt, 1907 (Ergebn. Plankton-Exped. Humbolt-Stiftung III. L.a. : 14) and of Leprotintinnus Jorgensen, 1900, with type-species L. pellucidus (Cleve) Jérgensen, 1901, as designated by Kofoid and Campbell, 1929 (Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 34:17), against the prior type designation of L. bottnicus (Nordqvist) Jérgensen, 1900, by Brandt, 1907 (Ergebn. Plankton-Exped. Hum- boldt-Stiftung Il. L.a. : 14). Tintinnidium marinum Kent, 1881, is a junior synonym of Tintinnus inquilinus (O. F. Miiller) Schrank, 1803, the type-species of Tintinnus. Currently recognized families are based on both Tintinnus and Tintinnidium. 2. Schrank, 1803 (Fauna Boica 3(1) : 317), described the genus Tintinnus, including within it three species including T. inquilinus = Trichoda inquilina O. F. Miiller, 1776 (Zool. Dan., appendix: 218), which was later designated as type- species by Brandt, 1907 (Ergebn. Plankton-Exped. Humboldt-Stiftung III. L.a. : 14). Kofoid and Campbell, 1929 (Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 34 : 329) designated Tintinnus lusus-undae Entz Sr. as type-species of Tintinnus. In 1939 Kofoid and Campbell (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard 84 : 317) stated that Apstein, 1915 (SitzBer. Ges. naturf. Freunde : 123) had previously designated T. inquilinus (O. F. Miiller) Schrank, 1803, as type of Tintinnus. Neither they nor Apstein were aware that the same species was earlier designated by Brandt, 1907, as type-species. As this type designation changed the generic content under their classification, Kofoid and Campbell, 1939 (op. cit.), erected the new genus Eutintinnus with type-species E. birictus (Kofoid and Campbell, 1929), to include such species as E. /ususundae (Entz Sr.). Tintinnus was then restricted to include only four species with homogeneous walls and closed aboral end, similar to T. inquilinus, whereas Eutintinnus included the large group of pelagic forms with open aboral end. The genus Tintinnus is type of the family TINTIN- NIDAE Claparéde and Lachmann, 1858, and subfamily TINTINNINAE Claparéde and Lachmann, 1858. 3. Kent, 1881 (4 manual of the Infusoria : 611) described Tintinnidium, and Brandt, 1907 (Ergebn. Plankton-Exped. Humboldt-Stiftung Ul. L.a. : 14), designated 7. marinum Kent, 1881, as its type-species. This species was included by Kofoid and Campbell, 1929 (Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 34 : 12), in the synonymy of Tintinnidium inquilinum (O. F. Miiller) Fauré-Fremiet, 1908. Unaware of Brandt’s previous type designation, Kofoid and Campbell, 1929 (Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 34:9) designated Tintinnidium mucicola (Claparéde Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. 302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and Lachmann) Daday, 1887, as type of Tintinnidium, although this was not in the original list of species. In 1939, because of the removal of the species inquilinus to Tintinnus, Kofoid and Campbell (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard 84 : 317) restricted Tintinnidium to include only eight species with aborally closed soft lorica containing agglutinated particles. Recognizing that their earlier type designation was in error, they then designated as type-species one of the originally included species, T. fluviatile. The family TINTINNIDIIDAE Kofoid and Campbell, 1929, is based on this genus. 4. Later workers have followed Kofoid and Campbell in their circum- scription of the genera Tintinidium family TINTINNIDIIDAE, Tintinnus and Eutin- tinnus, family TINTINNIDAE. If designation of T. marinum Kent as type of Tintinnidium were followed, this genus would become a subjective isotypic synonym of Tintinnus, and the species now referred to Tintinnidium would be left with no generic assignment. The family name would also require change. Retention of Kofoid and Campbell’s 1939 designation would thus be consistent with current usage and promote greater stability in nomenclature. 5. Leprotintinnus was described by Jérgensen, 1900 (Bergens Mus. Arb. 1899 (2) : 10) with two included species, L. brandtii (Nordqvist) and L. bottnicus (Nordqvist). Condonella brandti Nordqvist was later removed from Leprotin- tinnus to Tintinnopsis. Tintinnus bottnicus Nordqvist, 1890 (Medd. Soc. Fauna Flora Fenn. 17 : 126, fig. 5), was subsequently designated as type by Brandt, 1907 (Ergebn. Plankton-Exped. Humboldt-Stiftung U1. L.a. : 14). Joérgensen, 1901 (Bergens Mus. Arb. 1900 (6) : 18) stated that he had originally misidentified as L. bottnicus specimens correctly referrable to L. pellucidus (Cleve) Jorgensen, 1901. Kofoid and Campbell, 1929 (Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 34 : 17), unaware of the earlier designation by Brandt of L. bottnicus as type-species, designated L. pellucidus (Cleve) Jérgesen, 1901, as type-species, although this nominal species was not originally included in the genus. The species originally included as L. bottnicus by Jérgensen in his definition of the genus was in reality L. pellucidus, hence as a misidentified type-species it must be referred to the Commission(ICZN Art. 70(a)). Stability of nomenclature will best be preserved by recognition of the species L. pellucidus as type of Leprotintinnus, designated by Kofoid and Campbell, inasmuch as this species was that actually studied by Jorgensen. 6. In order to maintain current usage at the generic and family level, thereby promoting greater stability of nomenclature in the tintinnids the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Tintinnidium Kent, 1881, made prior to the Ruling now proposed, and having done so to designate Tintinnus fluviatilis Stein, 1863, to be the type of that genus; (2) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Leprotintinnus Jorgensen, 1900, made prior to the Ruling now proposed, and having done so to designate Tintinnus pellucidus Cleve, 1899, to be the type of that genus; (3) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303 (a) Tintinnus Schrank, 1803 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Brandt, 1907, Trichoda inguilina O. F. Miller, 1776; (b) Tintinnidium Kent, 1881 (gender : neuter), type-species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Tintinnus fluviatilis Stein, 1863; (c) Leprotintinnus Jérgensen, 1900 (gender : masculine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Tintinnus pellucidus Cleve, 1899; (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) inquilina O. F. Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Trichoda inguilina (type-species of Tintinnus Schrank, 1803); (b) fluviatilis Stein, 1863, as published in the binomen Tintinnus fluviatilis (type-species of Tintinnidium Kent, 1881); (c) pellucidus Cleve, 1899, as published in the binomen Tintinnus pellucidus (type-species of Leprotintinnus Jorgensen, 1900): (5) to place the following family-group names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology; (a) TINTINNIDAE Claparéde and Lachmann, 1858 (type-genus Tintinnus Schrank, 1803); (b) TINTINNIDUDAE Kofoid and Campbell, 1929 (type-genus Tintinni- dium Kent, 1881). 304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CYSTIDEA BARRANDE 1868 (CYSTOIDEA: GLYPTOCYSTITIDA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.NAS.) 1813 C. R. C. Paul (Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.) This communication requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to reject for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the genus-group name Cystidea Barrande, 1868. 2. In the following passage Barrande (1867, p. 179) introduced the binomina Cystidea bohemicus and Cystidea sedgwicki: “* Nous rappelons, que la bande d4 est horizon de notre division inférieure, qui fournait le plus de formes d’Echinodermes, dont quelques unes sont repré- sentées par trés nombreux individus, le plus souvent aplatis dans les couches schisteuses. Nous citerons commes exemples: d’abord Echinosphaerites infaustus, voisin de Echinosph. aurantium et dont les spécimens écrasés remplis- sent des couches entiéres. En second lieu, Cystidea Bohemica et Cyst. Sedgwicki, formes aux quelles nous nous réservons d’assigner plus tard un nom generique.” Barrande 1867, p. 179. As far as I am aware this constitutes the first use of Cystidea in a binomen and it is clear that Barrande intended Cystidea to be a collective group name, i.e. a name to cover a group of recognizable species, the generic assignment of which was uncertain or as yet unsettled. Both binomina are nomina nuda and Cystidea Barrande, 1867, is not an available generic name. 3. Barrande (1868, p. 694) published the binomen Cystidea bavarica for some cystoid fragments from Hof in Bavaria. This time, however, the binomen was accompanied by a description and Cystidea Barrande becomes available from this date. Barrande again expressly stated that Cystidea was not intended as a generic name: ‘“* Wir kennen bloss die zwei abgebildeten Plattchen, nach welchen es gewagt sein wiirde, dieser Art einem Gattungsnamen zu geben.”’ Barrande, 1868, p. 694. 4. Barrande (1887, pp. 82, 179-180, 188) again used Cystidea as a collective group name and added eight species each accompanied by a description and figure. He identified Cystidea sedgwicki Barrande, 1867, as Dendrocystites sedgwicki Barrande, 1887, (Barrande 1887, p. 142) but Cystidea bohemicus Barrande, 1867, was not identified. However, from the information given in the passage first quoted, it is evident that Cystidea bohemicus Barrande, 1867, became either Aristocystites bohemicus Barrande, 1887, or Craterina bohemicus Barrande, 1887 [= Codiacystis bohemicus (Barrande)]. The former is more likely. 5. Haeckel (1896, p. 152) used the binomen Cystidea dubia to describe some indeterminate plates figured by Barrande (1887, pl. 14, figs. 24-33) as “ Plaquettes d’origine douteuse.” Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305 6. Cystidea Barrande, 1867, is a nomen nudum. Cystidea Barrande, 1868, although intended as a collective group name, contained only one species, Cystidea bavarica Barrande, 1868, which would become type-species by mono- typy if Cystidea Barrande, 1868, were accepted as an available generic name. Although no author has accepted Cystidea as such there seems to be no reason to reject it. Cystidea Barrande, 1868, satisfies all the requirements of Article 11 of the régles and, despite its original author’s intentions, constitutes a valid generic name as far as I can determine. 7. Callaway (1877, p. 670) described a new cystoid, Macrocystella mariae Callaway, from the Shineton Shales of Shropshire, England. M. mariae Callaway is the type-species of the genus Macrocystella Callaway, 1877, by monotypy. 8. Barrande (1887, p. 163) proposed a new genus Mimocystites type- species Mimocystites bohemicus Barrande, 1887. 9. Pompeckj (1896), p. 90 assigned Cystidea bavarica Barrande, 1868, to the genus Macrocystella Callaway, 1877, as did Sdzuy tentatively (1955, p. 270). Pompeckj further suggested that Macrocystella Callaway, 1877, and Mimo- cystites Barrande, 1887, were synonymous. 10. Bather (1899, p. 920) proposed the family MACROCYSTELLIDAE of which Macrocystella Callaway, 1877, is type-genus. 11. Pompeckj (1896, p. 90), Jaekel (1899, p. 171), Bather (1900, p. 56), and Cuénot (1953, p. 619), have all suggested that Mimocystites Barrande, 1887, and Macrocystella Callaway, 1877, are very closely related or perhaps identical. Those authors who refrained from accepting the former as a junior synonym of the latter did so partly because Macrocystella mariae Callaway, 1877, type- species of Macrocystella, was inadequately described and partly because Bather (1900, fig. 18) published an inaccurate reconstruction. Sdzuy (1955) was further misled by an inaccurate plate diagram published by Moore (1954) but concluded that the two genera were only separable if published figures were accu- rate. A redescription of Macrocystella mariae Callaway has now been given (Paul, 1967). In my opinion there is no doubt that Cystidea bavarica Barrande, 1868, Macrocystella mariae Callaway, 1877, and Mimocystites bohemicus Barrande, 1887, are congeneric and strict application of the law of priority would require that Cystidea Barrande, 1868, be accepted as the valid name for this fossil echinoderm. Cystidea bavarica Barrande, 1868, is not a nomen oblitum as it was cited in that form by Bassler and Moodey (1943, p. 148) who were unaware that Pompeckj (1896) had referred it to Macrocystella Callaway. Bassler and Moodey also cited Cystidea, but as a collective group name not a formal generic name, and they attributed it to Barrande, 1887, despite listing the earlier usage (Barrande 1868). 12. Unnecessary confusion would result from the replacement of Macro- cystella Callaway, 1877, by Cystidea Barrande, 1868. Macrocystella Callaway, 1877, has been widely used in the literature and has been described and figured in text books and general treatises both in Zoology and Palaeontology in 306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature English, French and German. It would cause considerable confusion if this familiar name were replaced by Cystidea Barrande, 1868, particularly as species assigned to Cystidea as a collective group name have been re-assigned to different echinoderm classes. 13. Of the twelve forms ascribed to Cystidea by Barrande (1867, 1868, 1887) and Haeckel (1896) one (Cystidea sedgwicki) is a solute “ carpoid,” one (Cystidea bohemicus) a diploporite cystoid, and one (Cystidea bavarica) a rhombiferan cystoid. The remaining nine have not subsequently been assigned to any recognizable genus. It is therefore suggested that the generic name Cystidea Barrande, 1886, be suppressed under the plenary powers. This would leave nine as yet unrecognizable “ species ” without an available generic name. How- ever, it is still possible that all nine will be assigned to valid genera as their charac- ters become better known. The alternative course of retaining Cystidea Barrande, 1868, will still leave these forms without an avilable generic name as they are clearly not congeneric with Cystidea bavarica Barrande, 1868. 14. The International Commission is therefore requested : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Cystidea Barrande, 1868, for the purposes of the law of priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Macrocystella Callaway, 1877 (gender : femi- nine), type-species, by monotypy, Macrocystella mariae Callaway, 1877, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) to place the specific name mariae Callaway, 1877, as published in the binomen Macrocystella mariae (type-species of Macrocystella Calla- way, 1877) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) to place the specific name bavarica Barrande, 1868, as published in the binomen Cystidea bavarica, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (5) to place the family-group name MACROCYSTELLIDAE Bather, 1899 (type- genus Macrocystella Callaway, 1877) on the Official List of Family- group Names in Zoology. (6) to place the generic name Cystidea Barrande, 1868 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above), on the Official Index of Rejected or Invalid Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BARRANDE, J. 1867. Systéme silurien du centre de la Bohéme. 1¢ partie: Recherches paléontologiques. 3. Classe des Mollusques, Ordre des Ptéropodes. XV + 179 pp., 16 pls. 4°. Prague and Paris 1868. Silurische Fauna aus der Umgebung von Hof in Bayern. Neues Jb. Miner. Geol. Paldont. (1868) : 641-696, 2 pls ——— 1887. Systéme Silurien du,centre de la Bohéme. 1¢ partie: Recherches paléon- tologiques. 7. Classe des Echinodermes. Ordre des C ‘ystidés. XVII + 233 pp., 39 pls. 4°. Leipzig and Prague Basser, R. S. and Moopey, M. W. 1943. Bibliographic and faunal index of Paleozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms. ‘Spec. Pap. geol. Soc. Am. 45: VI + 733 pp Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307 BATHER, F. A. 1899. A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa. Rep. Br. Ass. Advmt Sci. 68 : 916-923, 1 fig. — 1900. The echinoderms. In LANKeEsTER, E. R. A treatise on Zoology. 3: VI + 344 pp, illust. London CaLLAway, C. 1877. Ona new area of Upper Cambrian rocks in South Shropshire, with a description of a new fauna. Q. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 33 : 652-672, pl. 24 CuENot, L. 1953. Echinodermes. Classe des Cystidés. In PrveTEAUu, J., Traité de Paléontologie., 3 : 607-628, 31 figs. HAECKEL, E, 1896. Amphoridea, Cystidea. In Festschrift zum _ siebenzigsten Geburtstage von Carl Gegenbauer am 2Ist August 1896, 1: 1-179, pls 1-5. Leipzig JAEKEL, O. 1899. Stammesgeschichte der Pelmatozoen. 1. Thecoidea und Cys- toidea. X + 442 pp. 18 pls, 88 figs. Berlin Moore, R. C. 1954. Echinodermata: Pelmatozoa. In KummeL, B., Status of invertebrate paleontology, 1953. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Hary., 112 : 125- 149, 8 figs. PauL, C. R. C. 1967. Macrocystella Callaway, the earliest glyptocystitid cystoid. Palaeontology (in press) PomPEcKS, J. F. 1896. Ein neuentdecktes Vorkommen von Tremadoc Fossilien bei Hof. Ber. nordoberfrank. ver. Naturk., 1 : 89-101 Spzuy, K. 1955. Cystoideen aus den Leimitz-Schiefern (Tremadoc). Sencken- bergiana Lethaea 45 : 269-276, 1 pl, 5 figs. 308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PACH YRH YNCAHUS GERMAR, 1824 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY SUPPRESSION OF PACH YRHYNCAUS WAGLER, 1822 (AVES, PASSERIFORMES). Z.N.(S.) 1815 By Elwood C. Zimmerman! (Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii) The well known name Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824, proposed for a large group of Pacific Curculionidae (weevils), is a homonym of Pachyrhynchus Wagler, 1822, which was erected (in a very rare publication) for a South American bird. It would be most unfortunate if a new name had to be used for Pachyrhynchus Germar in the Insecta, because more than 100 species-group names are associated with it, it is widely known in literature (including literature on economic entomology, zoogeography and mimicry), and it is the type-genus of the tribe PACHYRHYNCHINI which is one of the most unusual groups of the CURCULIONIDAE. Pachyrhynchus Wagler, however, is a junior synonym of Tityra Vieillot, 1816, a genus in use today which is not involved in any homonymy, and it has the same type-species. Because it is used only in junior synonymy, its suppression would cause no inconvenience or confusion, and no useful purpose would be served by its conservation and the then necessary suppression of the name as widely used in the Insecta. Should Pachyrhynchus not remain available in the Insecta, then a new name will have to be erected for it and the name of the tribe PACHYRHYNCHINI will have to be changed. Following is a summary of pertinent details: TITYRA Vieillot, 1816, Analyse, p. 39. Type-species, by monotypy: Lanius cayanus Linnaeus. =Pachyrhynchus Wagler, 1822, in Hahn, Vogel Aus Asien, Africa, America & Neuholland ..., Liefr. 13, col. 6, and text (unnumbered page) to the plate. Type-species, by monotypy: (Pachyrhynchus melanocephalus Wagler, same reference) =Lanius cayanus Linnaeus. PACHYRHYNCHUS Germar, 1824, Insectorum Species Novae aut Minus Cognitae .. .,p.336. Type-species, by monotypy: Pachyrhynchus moniliferus Germar, same reference, pl. 1, fig. 12. In the interest of stability and avoidance of confusion, the Commission is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Pachyrhynchus Wagler, 1822, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Pachyrhynchus moniliferus Germar, 1824, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; a ee 1 This is number 12 of a series of reports resulting from studies made possible by National Science Foundation Grant G-18933. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309 (3) to place the specific name moniliferus Germar, 1824, as published in the binomen Pachyrhynchus moniliferus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the family-group name PACHYRHYNCHINI (Schoenherr, 1826, Curculionidum Dispositio Methodica . . +» P. 88, as PACHYRHYNCHIDES) (type-genus : Pachyrhynchus Germar) on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the generic name Pachyrhynchus Wagler, 1822, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LASIOPTERA MEIGEN, 1818: APPLICATION TO PRESERVE THE GENERIC NAME IN ITS ACCUSTOMED MEANING (DIPTERA, CECIDOMYIIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 1822 By Curtis W. Sabrosky and Raymond J. Gagné (Entomology Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) A long-overlooked type designation threatens to cause serious confusion in the economically important genus Lasioptera in the gall midges of the dipterous family CECIDOMYIIDAE. Use of the plenary powers is requested to preserve the name in its long established meaning. 2. The genus Lasioptera was proposed by Meigen (1818 : 88) with eight included species, arranged in three groups: A. Four species (very short basitarsus), including L. picta Meigen and L. albipennis (Meigen, 1804). B. Three species (elongated basitarsus), one or perhaps two of them doubtfully referred to the genus. C. One species (unassigned to A or B), L. juniperina (Linnaeus, 1758). 3. No type-species was designated. Authors gradually confined Lasioptera to Meigen’s group A, and modern authors followed this and cited Coquillett’s designation of albipennis as the type-species (1910: 558). This was also accepted in the new “ Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico ” (Stone ef al., 1965 : 270), but in a list of corrections to that Catalog, Sabrosky (1967 : 118) has recently pointed out the long-overlooked designation of L. picta Meigen by Karsch (1878 : 14). Fortunately, the two species L. picta and L. albipennis are congeneric, and this change causes no difficulty. 4. Now it has been discovered—surprisingly so in view of the prominence of Rondani in dipterology—that there is yet another overlooked designation for Lasioptera, still earlier than that of Karsch. In 1860: 291, Rondani designated as type-species Tipula juniperina Linnaeus (as ‘‘ Tuniperina”’, an obvious typographical error). This was already the type-species, by monotypy, of Oligotrophus Latreille (1805), another important genus in the CECIDOMYIIDAE. The consequences of acceptance of Rondani’s designation would be (1) to synonymize Lasioptera, one of the oldest and best known genera in the family and the type-genus of tribe LASIOPTERINI and supertribe LASIOPTERIDI, under Oligotrophus, itself the type-genus of a tribe OLIGOTROPHINI and supertribe OLIGOTROPHIDI, and (2) to require another name for the Lasioptera of authors recognized since 1818 and for the tribe and supertribe based upon it. 5. Search for a replacement name for Lasioptera, if that were decided upon, would lead one into further problems. An obvious candidate would be Diomyza, a Megerle manuscript name cited by Meigen under Lasioptera (1818 : 88) and in two manuscript names for species, one each under L. picta and L. fusca (: 89). It was adopted by Stephens (1829a : 53; 1829b : 240), who cited Megerle as author and listed three nomina nuda, and by Stephens (1846 : 21), who doubtfully referred to it Lasioptera pulchra Meigen (1830). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 311 Westwood (1840 : 126) recognized the genus Diomyza (again with Megerle as author), gave a brief description, and cited as type-species D. fuliginosa Stephens (plate 42, fig. 4). The plate reference refers to Stephens (1846), but there the figure is actually called ‘“ D. pulchra?”’. D. fuliginosa is a nomen nudum from Stephens (1829a, b) but it is made available by Westwood, by indication (bibliographic reference to the excellent coloured figure in Stephens, 1846). Obviously then, the name Diomyza has been “ treated as an available name with its original date and authorship” and “ adopted as the name of a taxon ”’ (Code, 1964, Art. 11d), and must be treated as available. Incidentally it has rarely been used, and then not always correctly. For example, Schiner (1864 : 410) credited Diomyza to Stephens and claimed to use it in his sense (elongated basitarsus) for the species of Meigen’s ‘““B”’ group, but Schiner misinterpreted Stephen’s excellent coloured figure, which is actually a true Lasioptera of Meigen’s ‘“ A” group (abbreviated basitarsus). 6. If Diomyza be considered to replace Lasioptera, one faces the question of the type-species of a generic name in synonymy. Some have interpreted it as (1) automatically the type of the name under which it is synonymized (ob- jective synonymy), (2) automatically, by considering the senior name as a replacement for the manuscript synonym, the type-species of either when established (Art. 67i), or (3) the species with which it is specifically associated in the publication in which jt first appeared. Under the first two interpreta- tions the type-species would be that of Lasioptera, hence juniperina by designa- tion of Rondani (1860), thus involving Diomyza in the same difficulty as Lasioptera. Under the third interpretation, Diomyza was specifically associated with L. picta and L. fusca. Coquillett (1910 : 533) stated that the type was picta, and this could be recognized as designation even though his reason (monotypy) was erroneous (Art. 69a (iii)). 7. After considering the various difficulties, the threatened change of a long-established name to a new meaning and its replacement by a long buried name that in itself has problems, we conclude that the best solution would be to set aside the overlooked designation by Rondani. 8. Accordingly, the International Commission is requested to take the following actions: (1) For the nominal genus Lasioptera Meigen, to use its plenary powers to set aside the type designation by Rondani (1860) and any others that may conflict prior to that of Karsch (1878), and to fix that of Karsch as the valid type designation; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Lasioptera Meigen, 1818 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation of Karsch, 1878 (accepted under the plenary powers), Lasioptera picta Meigen; (3) to place the specific name picta Meigen, 1818, as published in the binomen Lasioptera picta Meigen (type-species of Lasioptera Meigen), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LITERATURE CITED CoquiLLeTT, D. W. 1910. The type-species of the North American genera of Diptera. U.S. Natl. Mus. Proc. 37 : 499-647 KarscuH, F. 1878. Revision der Gallmiicken. 57 pp., 1 pl. Miinster. MEIGEN, J. W. 1818. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten zweifliigeligen Insekten. Vol. 1, xxxvi + 333 pp., pl. 1-11. Aachen RONDANI, C. 1860. Stirpis cecidomyarum. Genera revisa. Nota undecima, pro dipterologia italica. Soc. Ital. di Sci. Nat. Atti (1859-1860) 2 : 286-294, 1 pl. SABROSKY, C. W. 1967. Corrections to A Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico. Entomol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 13 : 115-125 ScHINER, I. R. 1864. Fauna Austriaca. Die Fliegen. Vol. 2, xxxii + 658 pp. Vienna STEPHENS, J. F. 1829a. The nomenclature of British insects. 68 pp. London — 1829b. A systematic catalogue of British insects. Vol. 2, 338 pp. London — 1846. Illustrations of British entomology. Supplement. 32 (+1 unnum- bered) pp., pls. 39-48. London Strong, Alan, et al. 1965. A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico. U.S. Dept. Agric., Agric. Handbook No. 276, iv + 1696 pp. Washington, D.C WestTwoop, J. O. 1840. An introduction to the modern classification of insects. Synopsis of the genera of British insects. 158 pp. London Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313 EPIRHEXIS COPE, 1866 (AMPHIBIA: SALIENTIA) : REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1824 By John D. Lynch (Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 66044, U.S.A.) Baird (1859) named Batrachyla longipes on the basis of a single specimen (now lost) collected 40 leagues north of Mexico City. Cope (1866) diagnosed a new genus, Epirhexis, with Batrachyla longipes as the type-species. Boulenger (1882) placed B. /ongipes in the status of species inquirenda in his catalogue and was followed by Nieden (1923). Barbour (1923) and Kellogg (1932) placed the species in the genus Eleutherodactylus; they based their conclusions on a misidentified specimen (Taylor, 1940 a). Lynch (1963) in pointing out certain errors in the figures of Batrachyla longipes, concluded that little, if any, faith could be placed in the accuracy of the original figures (the figures serve as the sole indication) and that the name should be regarded as a nomen dubium. In the course of reviewing Syrrhophus, geographic variation in S. latodactylus was observed. This variation had been earlier noted in the original description by Taylor (1940 5). The southern populations are unlike other Syrrhophus in having dorsal patterns of large blotches, whereas other species of the genus have flecked or punctate patterns (Firschein, 1954). Batrachyla longipes and Syrrhophus latodactylus (from the southern part of its range) share the following characteristics: the dorsal colour pattern consists of large blotches or spots; vomerine teeth are present; and the digital tips are expanded. The type- locality of Batrachyla longipes, “‘ 40 leagues N Mexico,” probably is in north- western Hidalgo, Mexico, near localities where Syrrhophus latodactylus is found. Syrrhophus, as defined by Firschein (1954) would not accommodate Batrachyla longipes, and therefore, Lynch (1963) suggested that B. longipes be regarded as a nomen dubium. Lynch (1967) redefined the ill-defined genus Syrrhophus and, as presently defined, Syrrhophus would include Batrachyla longipes. No evidence is available to suggest that Syrrhophus latodactylus and Batrachyla longipes are not conspecific, whereas considerable evidence suggests that they are conspecific. The argument of Lynch (1963) that B. longipes be regarded as a nomen dubium is therefore rejected. Inclusion of Batrachyla longipes in the generic group called Syrrhophus poses a problem in that Epirhexis Cope, 1866 (type-species by original desig- nation Batrachyla longipes Baird), has priority over, and must replace, Syrrhophus Cope, 1878 (type-species by monotypy Syrrhophus marnockii Cope, 1878). Epirhexis received comment (or mention) as a senior name only four times in the literature (Cope, 1866, 1875, 1887, 1889) and has been universally regarded as a generic synonym of Eleutherodactylus since 1923. Syrrhophus has received considerable comment during the last 70 years and is well en- trenched in the zoological literature, inasmuch as it was used in such com- pilations and monographic studies as those of Gorham (1966), Gunther (1900), Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. 314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Kellogg (1932), Nieden (1923), Noble (1931), and Smith and Taylor (1948). Serious confusion and instability would be generated by the replacing of the well-established name Syrrhophus with the little known Epirhexis. Syrrhophus latodactylus is an uncommon species of frog occurring on the Caribbean slopes of eastern Mexico; because of its rarity it has received little attention in the literature. The name Batrachyla longipes, has received equal, if not more, comment than Syrrhophus latodactylus but under the name Eleutherodactylus longipes. The geographic variation within the species is such that in the future other workers may wish to apply subspecific names to the northern and southern populations. The type-locality of Syrrhophus lato- dactylus is near the northern limits of the species range and that of Batrachyla longipes near the southern limit. Little confusion would result from use of the combination Syrrhophus longipes as the name of the species currently known as S. latodactylus and, if, in the future, subspecific names were to be applied, names would be available for each end of the cline. Three alternatives are available: (A) application of the Law of Priority, replacing Syrrhophus Cope, 1878, with Epirhexis Cope, 1866, and replacing Syrrhophus latodactylus Taylor, 1940, with Batrachyla longipes Baird, 1859; or (B) suppression of the generic name Epirhexis Cope, 1866, and the specific name /ongipes, used in the combination Batrachyla longipes by Baird (1859), thus preserving Syrrhophus Cope, 1878, and S. latodactylus Taylor, 1940; or (C) suppression of the generic name Epirhexis Cope, 1866, while preserving the specific name Jongipes, used in the combination Batrachyla longipes by Baird (1859) thus preserving Syrrhophus Cope, 1878, and eliminating the need (should such arise) of providing a new name for the southern population. Alternative (A) would promote a situation of instability as argued above. The second and third alternatives both have merit in preserving Syrrhophus Cope, 1878, and differ only in preserving (or not) the specific name /ongipes, as used in the combination Batrachyla longipes. Batrachyla longipes was the first name applied to any of the dozen known species of Syrrhophus and its preser- vation would thus not upset any present classification other than the name for the species now called S. /atodactylus. As pointed out above, the possibility exists for recognizing two subspecies in this species (although this author does not feel such would be of value). Retention of the specific name /ongipes would eliminate the need of proposing a new name for the southern population (should such need arise). Accordingly, I now request the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Epirhexis Cope, 1866 (type-species by original designation Batrachyla longipes Baird, 1859) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315 (3) to place the generic name Syrrhophus Cope, 1878 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Syrrhophus marnockii Cope, 1878, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (a) marnockii Cope, 1878, as published in the binomen Syrrhophus marnockii (type-species of Syrrhophus Cope, 1878); (b) /ongipes Baird, 1859, as published in the binomen Batrachyla longipes. REFERENCES BAIRD, SPENCER F. 1859. Reptiles of the Boundary. United States and Mexican Boundary Survey. pp. 1-35, pl. 1-41 BaRBouR, THOMAS. 1923. The reappearance of Batrachyla longipes. Proc. New England Zoological Club, 8 : 81-83 BouLencer, G. A. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the collection of the British Museum, 2nd Ed., pp. xvi + 503, pl. 1-30 Cope, E.D. 1866. On the structures and distribution of the genera of the arciferous Anura. Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, (2) 6 : 67-122, pl. 25 —— 1875. Checklist of North American Batrachia and Reptilia with a systematic list of the higher groups, and an essay on geographical distribution based on the specimens contained in the U.S. National Museum. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 1: 104 —— 1878. A new genus of Cystignathidae from Texas. American Naturalist, 12 : 252-53 — 1887. Catalogue of Batrachia and Reptilia of Central America and Mexico. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 32 : 1-98 —— 1889. The Batrachia of North America. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 34 : 1-545, pls. 1-86 FIRSCHEIN, I. LesteR. 1954. Definition of some little-understood members of the leptodactylid genus Syrrhopus, with a description of a new species. Copeia, 1 : 48-58 GorHAM, STANLEY W. 1966. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien Ascaphi- dae, Leiopelmatidae, Pipidae, Discoglossidae, Pelobatidae, Leptodactylidae, Rhinophrynidae. Das Tierreich, Lief. 85, pp. xvi + 222 GUNTHER, ALBERT C. L. G. 1885-1902. Biologia Centrali-Americana. Reptilia and Batrachia. 1885-1902, pp. xx + 326, pls. 1-76 (section on Syrrhophus dated 1900) KELLOGG, REMINGTON. 1932. Mexican tailless amphibians in the United States National Museum. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 160 : pp. iv + 224, pl. 1 Lyncu, JoHN D. 1963. The status of Eleutherodactylus longipes (Baird) of Mexico (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae). Copeia, 3 : 580-81 —— 1967. The genera of leptodactylid frogs in Mexico. Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist., (in press) NieEDEN, F. 1923. Anura I. Subordo Aglossa und Phaneroglossa, Sectio 1, Arcifera. Das Tierreich, Lief. 46, pp. xxxii -- 584 Noste, G. K. 1931. The biology of the Amphibia. McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. xiii + 577 SmitH, Hosart M., and TayLor, Epwarp H. 1948. An annotated checklist and key to the Amphibia of Mexico. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 194 : pp. iv + 118 TAYLOR, EDwarD H. 1940a. A new eleutherodactylid frog from Mexico. Proc. New England Zoological Club, 18 : 13-16, pls. 1-2 —— 1940b. New species of Mexican Anura. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 26 : 385-405 316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ESCHARA SPONGITES PALLAS, 1766 (BRYOZOA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1826 By the late H. Dighton Thomas and Anna B. Hastings (British Museum (Natural History), London) 1. The name Stylopoma was introduced by Levinsen in 1909 in the ex- planation of Plate XVIII and in the legend to that plate. In the former the two species assigned to Stylopoma are referred to as Schizoporella (Stylopoma) longirostris Hincks and Schizoporella (St.) spongites (Pallas), whereas in the latter they are given as Stylopoma longirostris Hincks and St. spongites Pall., respectively. Whether Levinsen intended the name as a subgenus of Schizo- porella Hincks by his use of parentheses in the explanation of Plate XVIII is not clear, as he used parentheses apparently with an entirely different meaning in other parts of the work, e.g., Electra (Heteroecium) amplectens Hincks on p. 147 and in the explanation of Plate IX, and Catenaria (Vittaticella) elegans (Busk), Catenaria (Vittat.) fusca (MacGilliv.) and Catenaria (Vittat.) cornuta (Busk) in the explanation of Plate XIJI—in these instances it is probable that the name in parentheses indicates that it is a synonym. This, however, could not have been Levinsen’s intention with regard to Stylopoma and Schizoporella. In the legend to Plate XVIII the name is given full generic rank. 2. The type-species of Stylopoma, chosen from the two originally included species by Canu and Bassler (1920, p. 359), is Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766, p. 45. 3. Pallas (p. 46) gave the localities from which the species came as “ Mare Mediterraneum & Americanum ”’. 4. Although Harmer (1930, p. 79) has pointed out that Pallas included several species in Eschara spongites, Pallas gave a good description of a Medit- erranean specimen in the “‘ Museo Serenissimi Principis Auriaci”’ and com- mented that the specimen figured by Gualtieri (1742, figure after Title of Pt. iv) was very similar to it in its character. Pallas’s remarks (p. 47) on the American specimens indicate that they belonged to other species (cf Harmer, 1930, p. 79 —‘The American specimens included probably belonged to other species ”’). 5. In the hundred years following Pallas, several authors used his specific name spongites, either combined with Eschara, Cellepora or Millepora, for Mediterranean material (see Jelly, 1889, p. 234). 6. Smitt (1873, p. 42, pl. 8, figs. 161-163) used the name spongites, as Hippothoa spongites, for a species from Florida. 7. Waters (1909, p. 144), treating his own species Lepralia errata (1878, p. 11), L. errata, stadium Hemeschara (1879, p. 39, pl. 10, fig. 5), from the Bay of Naples, as a variety of Schizoporella unicornis (Johnston), noted that it “is what Pallas described as Eschara spongites” and that it “is not the S. spongites of Smitt, Hincks and Thornely ”. [Harmer, (1957, pp. 1035, 1034) referred the Hincks and Thornely material to Stylopoma parviporosum (Canu and Bassler) and S. duboisii (Audouin), respectively.] Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317 8. Later in the same year (1909, p. 324) Levinsen re-described Smitt’s species and introduced the name Stylopoma (see paragraph 1, above). Al- though he referred to the species as Schizoporella spongites (Pallas) Smitt, he did not restrict the name spongites to the American material, but included a specimen from Aor, Malacca, Burma, (p. 325) and one from Java (pl. XVIII, fig. 4d). 9. By 1918, Waters (p. 17) recognized that Eschara spongites Pallas in- volved three species, namely, (a) Schizoporella unicornis forma errata (Waters) [=Lepralia errata Waters, an erect form], (b) S. sanguinea Norman, another Mediterranean but encrusting species, and (c) the American S. Spongites of Smitt and Levinsen. He Suggested that, as “the first two species are well known under other names ”’ [i.e., later names], spongites should be applied to the American species. However, he made no designation of a type-specimen. 10. Osburn (1914, p. 207), Canu and Bassler (1920, p. 359; 1930, p. 40), and Hastings (1930, p. 721) used Spongites for the American species. 11. Pallas not only included Gualtieri’s figure of Porus Anguinus . . . in his synonymy of Eschara spongites, but he also commented on the specimen in his remarks (see paragraph 4, above). Thus, in accordance with Article 74b of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, Harmer’s choice (1930, p. 80) of Gualtieri’s figure as type of the species appears to be valid—Harmer wrote, * Pallas’ citation of Gualtieri makes it possible, however, to retain his name in the sense usually accepted: and Gualtieri’s figure is thus to be regarded as the type of Eschara Spongites”’. The later statement of Hastings (1932, p. 420) that “ The genotype of Stylopoma is the W. Indian species figured by Levinsen ” is incorrect. 12. The name Stylopoma Spongites (Pallas) is thus restricted to the Mediter- ranean form, and is not available for the American species. 13. Hastings (1932, p. 420), Marcus (1937, p. 91; 1955, p. 296) and Osburn (1940, p. 424; 1947, p. 29: 1952, p. 336), accepted Harmer’s restriction of the name to the Mediterranean species. Following the suggestion of Canu and Bassler (1923, p. 102), they placed the Recent American species in the synonymy of Cellepora informata Lonsdale (1845, p. 505, 2 figs.), using the combination Stylopoma informata (Lonsdale). 14. Cheetham and Sandberg (1964, p. 1030) stated the nomenclatorial problems of both Stylopoma and Eschara Spongites, and gave reasons (p. 1031) for rejecting the Synonymy of the Recent American species with Cellepora informata. 15. It appears from the foregoing that the choice by Harmer (1930) of a Mediterranean lectotype for Eschara Spongites Pallas was strictly lawful, but invalidates current usages as follows: i. of the genus Stylopoma Levinsen for a distinctive group of species. ii. of the name Stylopoma spongites (Pallas) for a well-known American (warm Atlantic) species. iii. of the name Schizoporella errata (Waters) for a common Mediterranean and ship-fouling species. 16. By rejecting Harmer’s selection and choosing a specimen of the American species as neotype of Eschara spongites Pallas, these usages would all remain undisturbed. 318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17. Moreover, as the Mediterranean species is also known from the American coast (certain records of Schizoporella unicornis being based on S. errata), this course would avoid the transference of the name spongites from one American species to another. 18. We, therefore, ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of a type-specimen for Eschara spongites Pallas 1766, made prior to the Ruling now requested, and having done so, to designate: (a) Levinsen’s dry specimen from St. Jean (St. John) Bay, W. Indies, 10 fath., in Universitetets Museum, Copenhagen, redescribed by Hastings (in press), as neotype of Eschara spongites Pallas; (b) Levinsen’s spirit specimen from St. Jean (St. John), W. Indies, in the same museum and redescribed by Hastings, as neoparatype of Eschara spongites Pallas; (2) to place the following specific names on to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) spongites Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Eschara spongites (type-species of Stylopoma Levinsen, 1909); (b) errata Waters, 1878, as published in the binomen Lepralia errata; (3) to place the generic name Sty/opoma Levinsen, 1909, (gender : neuter), type-species, chosen by Canu and Bassler, 1920, p. 45, Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766, on to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES CANu, F., and BAssLer, R. S. 1920. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., 106, 879 pp. —— 1923. Op. cit., 125, 302 pp. — 1930. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 76 (13), 73 pp. CHEETHAM, A. H., and SANDBERG, P. A. 1964. J. Paleontology, 38 (6), pp. 1013— 1046 Gua tier, N. 1742. Index Testarum Conchyliorum, Florentiae Harmer, S. F. 1930. Proc. Linn. Soc. London, 141, pp. 68-118 — 1957. Rep. Siboga Exp., XXVIII d, pp. i-xv, 641-1147 Hastincs, A. B. 1930. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, pp. 697-740 — 1932. Rep. Gt. Barrier Reef Exp., 4(2), pp. 399-458 Jetty, E.C. 1889. A Synonymic Catalogue of the Recent Marine Bryozoa. London LEVINSEN, G. M. R. 1909. Morphological and Systematic Studies on the Cheilo- stomatous Bryozoa. Copenhagen LoNSDALE, W. 1845. Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London, 1, pp. 495-509 Marcus, E. 1937. Bol. Fac. Filos. Ciénc. S. Paulo, Zool. 1, pp. 1-224 — 1955. Arg. Mus. Nat. Rio de Janeiro, 92, pp. 273-324 Ospurn, R.C. 1914. Pap. Tortugas Lab., 5, pp. 181-222 — 1940. Sci. Surv. Porto Rico and Virgin ne, 16 (3), pp. 321-486 — 1947. Rep. Allan Hancock Atlantic Exp., 5, pp. 1-66 — 1952. Rep. Allan Hancock Pacific Exp., 14 ‘Op pp. 271-611 PALLAS, P.S. 1766. Elenchus Zoophytorum ...Hagae Comitum Smitt, F. A. 1873. K. Svenska Vetensk.-Akad. Handl., 11 (4), pp. 3-230 Waters, A. W. 1878. Proc. Manch. Lit. & Phil. Soc., 18 (8), pp. 8-11 — 1879. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (5) 3, pp. 28-43 — 1909. J. Linn. Soc. Zool. London, 31, pp. 123-181 — 1918. J. Linn. Soc. Zool. London, 34, pp. 1-45 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319 POLANISA WALKER, 1875 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1829 By J. T. Wiebes (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress under its plenary powers the generic name Polanisa Walker, 1875, thus preventing a possible replacement of the generic name of the species now known as Philotrypesis Forster, 1878, which is a subjective junior synonym of Polanisa Walker. 2. Walker (1871, Notes on Chalcidiae 4 : 62) described Idarnes transiens, “ observed in the figs of Ficus Indica, in Hindostan, by Sir Walter Elliott ”. This species was subsequently listed as Idarnella transiens by Westwood (1883, Trans. ent. Soc. London : 37), Idarnella being proposed by Westwood as a new, monotypic genus for /darnes transiens Walker; as Polanisa transiens by Patton (1884, Proc. ent. Soc. London : xvi; see below); and as Philotrypesis transiens by Grandi (1921, Boll. Lab. Zool. Portici 15 : 95-102, 184; 1930, Boll. Lab. Ent. Bologna 3 : 51-56, 168-171, 175), and by Wiebes (1966, Zool. Verh. 83 : 11; 1966, Tijdschr. Ent. 109 : 165). 3. In 1875, in a posthumous paper by Walker (1875, Entomologist 8 : 15-18), several insects were described, “* destructive to the fig in India ”, among which was Polanisa lutea Walker (p. 18). According to Patton (loc. cit.) these posthumous descriptions were taken from notes made prior to Walker’s pub- lication of 1871, and they were based on the same material. Thus, Patton synonymized Jdarnes transiens and Polanisa lutea, and used the combination Polanisa transiens. 4. Forster (1878, Ver. naturh. Ver. preus. Rheinl. 35 : 59-60) erected the genus Philotrypesis. This generic name has since been used for some thirty species of Torymidae, including the well-known parasite of the Edible Fig, and there is an extensive literature in which the name Philotrypesis has been con- sistently employed (e.g. the monographs by Grandi, mentioned above; Joseph, 1958, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. (11) 20: 197-260; and several more papers dealing with the economic importance of this insect). Moreover, it has been taken as the basis of a family-group name (PHILOTRYPINI Wiebes, 1966, Zool. Meded. 41: 154). Philotrypesis Forster, 1878, was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (no. 1578); see China (1962, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 160-163) for particulars. 5. Ashmead (1904, Mem. Carnegie Mus. 1 : 378, 386), by synonymizing Idarnella Westwood and Philotrypesis Forster, and at the same time, erroneously, listing Jdarnes transiens as the type of Polanisa Walker, implicitly accepted the synonymy of Polanisa Walker and Philotrypesis Forster. So did Hoffmeyer (1930, Ent. Medd. 17 : 224), but in 1933 (Ent. Medd. 18 : 249) he accepted Grandi’s conclusion that Polanisa Walker ‘“‘ must for ever be standing as a doubtful (invalid) genus”. This was also suggested by China (loc. cit.), in answer to my proposal to suppress Polanisa Walker. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967, 320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. In a forthcoming paper (Wiebes, 1967, in press), I designate a female from ‘‘ Murutt. Sir W. Elliott. BM 81-107 ” lectotype of both J/darnes transiens Walker, 1871, and Polanisa lutea Walker, 1875. Thus Polanisa is no longer a nomen dubium, but a senior, subjective synonym of Philotrypesis. 7. Similar cases arise in many other of Walker’s names, but in most instances, nomenclatorial confusion by adhering to the Law of Priority is too slight to warrant conservation of the younger name. As the replacement of Philotrypesis by Polanisa, however, will cause much confusion in both taxonomic and applied literature on fig wasps, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Polanisa Walker, 1875, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place Polanisa Walker, 1875, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. (Secretary and Managing Director) The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merten, P.C., C.H. Dr. G. O. Evans Dr. L. B. Holthuis Mr. R. V. Melville Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte B. The Officers of the Trust W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. (Scientific Controller) Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Opinions Opinion 829 (Papias Godman, [1900]) Opinion 830 (Phanes Godman, [1901]) Opinion 831 (Telicota Moore, [1881]) Opinion 832 (Zenis Godman, [1900]) Opinion 833 (Limacia Miiller, 1781) Opinion 834 (Tipula nubeculosa Meigen, 1804) New Cases Argynnis chlorodippe Villiers & Guenée, 1835 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (N. D. Riley) .. Heterotis Ehrenberg, 1829, and Clupisudis Swainson, 1839 (Pisces): Proposal to place on the Official List of Generic Names in eae (F. d’Aubenton and J. Daget) .. Terebratulina d’Orbigny, 1847 (Brachiopoda): Proposed designation of a a type-species under the plenary powers (C. H. C. Brunton & L. R. M. Cocks) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers of three species r names of Brachiopod erected by Linnaeus (C. H. C. Brunton & L. R. M. Cocks) Tintinnidium and Leprotintinnus (Tintinnida): Proposed designation of type-species under the plenary powers (Helen Tappan & Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr.) F Cystidea Barrande, 1868 (Cystoidea): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (C. R. C. Paul) . Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed c conserva- tion by suppression of Pachyrhynchus Mi aia 1822 eh Passeri- formes) (Elwood C. Zimmerman) : : 301 308 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Lasioptera Meigen, 1818: Application to preserve the generic name in its accustomed meaning (Insecta, Diptera) (Curtis W. Sabrosky & Raymond J. Gagné) a Epirhexis Cope, 1866 (Amphibia): “Request for suppression under the plenary powers (John D. Lynch) : Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa): "Proposed designation of 2 a neotype under the plenary powers (H. Dighton Thomas & Anna B. Hastings) .. Polanisa Walker, 1875 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): ‘Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (J. T. Wiebes) ; Comments Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia): Further comment on the proposed preservation and renewed application (H. Hemmer) Reply to Mayr’s comment on the proposed preservation of Pan from Oken (P. Hershkovitz) : Comment on the proposals concerning the ‘generic names Megalichthys and Rhizodus (E. I. White; D. Baird) Comment on the proposed suppression of Strix capensis Daudin bets F. Mees) ae Withdrawal of application for suppression of the mammalian name douglasii, published as Lepus douglasii (C. A. Long) . Further comment on the case of Gracilaria versus Gracilaria (E. C. Zimmerman & N. D. Riley) Comment on proposals for stabilization of the names of | certain genera and species of Holothurioidea (H. Lemche) Additional comment on the proposed rejection of Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802 (H. M. Smith) Comment on application for use of plenary powers to ‘validate Sterna tschegrava and Motacilla pleschanka Lepechin, 1770. (Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature) . . Comment on the request for a Declaration against the suppression of nomina dubia (H. Lemche) Comment on the proposed designation of a type-species for Patanga Uvaroy, 1923 (E. Mayr) . Comment on the proposed validation of the spelling ‘Polyxenus for Pollyxenus Latreille (C. A. W. Jeekel) . Comment on the lat decision on the validity of Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 (C. P. Groves) © 1967, THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment Page 310 313 316 319 259 261 262 263 266 267 268 269 270 275 275 276 279 1 . 4 ieee _— => ©” a 4" Volume 24, Part 6 18th January 1968 pp. 321-384, T.P.—XI THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 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 aatee yaa in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. . Ss ae 7% ss 321 Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases .. ad aoe Soee (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. 1968 Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) fo M INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Acting President: Dr. L. B. Hortsutis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Acting Secretary: Dr. W. E, Cutna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico TorToNngEsE (Museo di Storia Naturale ““G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) hk ie piers (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) uly Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OsrucuEv (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) Bere Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March sare eee ena ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) ay ae arin Owen Evans (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.) (31 May ) Dr. E.G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) (Councillor) De W. =) Cuina (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting ecretary Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. L. B. Hoxtsuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Acting President) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) k Dr. Carl L. Huss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) ; Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Rive (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Dr. Curtis W. SasrosKy (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Department of Geology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) > te ee ee BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE — LSS EE eee Volume 24, Part 6 (pp. 321-384, T.P.-x1) 18th January 1968 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 neotype for Cellularia salicornia Pallas, 1766; Suppres- sion of OR designation of a neotype for Eschara fistulosa Linnaeus, 1758; Suppression of Cellaria Sarciminoides Ellis & Solander, 1786; Designation of type-species of Cellaria Ellis & Solander, 1786; Suppression of OR designation of a neotype for Cellaria salicornioides Lamouroux, 1816 (Polyzoa). Z.N.(S.)1814. (2) Suppression of Elipesurus and Elipesurus spinicauda Schomburgk, 1843 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1825. (3) Designation of a type-species for Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1827. (4) Emendation to Liphistius of Lipistius Schiodte, 1849 (Araneae). Z.N. (S.) 1828. (5) Designation of a type-species for Bollia Jones & Holl, 1886 (Ostracoda). Z.N.(S.) 1831. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Acting Secretary, London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on November 1967 Zoological Nomenclature 322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF NEMATUS LEACHII DAHLBOM, 1835. (Z.N.(S.) 1778 (see volume 24, page 95) By J. Muldrew, R. J. Heron, W. G. H. Ives, C. H. Buckner, W. J. Turnock, F. W. Quednau, and H. E. Coppel (Department of Forestry & Rural Development, Canada) We strongly support the motion for the suppression of the name Nematus leachii Dahlbom as recommended by Benson and Wong on the grounds given by these authors and in particular because of the extensive usage of “erichsonii”, both in North America and Europe, in numerous scientific papers, pamphlets and textbooks. The latter name is so well known for this species that a great deal of confusion would result if it were to be changed at this time. In addition a species of Pristiphora that also feeds on Larix was given the specific name ‘‘/eechi” by Wong and Ross (Can. Ent. 92 (3) : 193, 1960). Because of the similarity in spelling between this and “‘ /eachii”, considerable confusion vee occur if the latter name is designated as the correct specific name for the larch sawfly. By H. Pschorn-Walcher and O. Eichhorn (Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Delémont, Switzerland) We strongly support the motion for the suppression of the name Nematus leachii Dahlbom as recommended by Benson and Wong. The name Pristiphora erichsonii has been used so extensively that its replacement by a completely unknown name would cause a great deal of confusion. It should also be pointed out that—although likely— it is not 100 per cent sure that the description of a gregarious sawfly larva on larch by Dahlbom refers to P. erichsonii as we recently discovered a second species in Europe whose larvae feed gregariously on larch trees (compare Pschorn-Walcher & Eichhorn, 1963, Techn. Bull. C.I.B.C.: 51-82). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SCUTELLUIDAE RICHTER & RICHTER, 1925 (TRILOBITA). Z.N.(S.) 1789 (see volume 24, pages 230-233) By J. Stubblefield (London) The above-named application draws attention to two causes of nomenclatorial annoyance—homonymy or rather partial homonymy of genera in different phyla and the confusion caused by reviving nomina oblita. There are two generic taxa, one an echinoid and the other a trilobite, which were similarly named; the echinoid was called Scutella Lamarck, 1816, being accorded a feminine name termination, and the trilobite name Scutellum Pusch, 1833, received a neuter name ending. The echinoid name shortly gave origin to a family name SCUTELLIDAE Gray, 1825, but the trilobite name slept forgotten for nearly a hundred years and the trilobite genus itself was successively named Brontes Goldfuss, 1839, Goldius de Koninck, 1839, and Bronteus (replacement name for Brontes pre- occupied) Goldfuss, 1844. Then in 1925 R. & E. Richter not only revived Scutellum Pusch but made it the basis of a family name SCUTELLIDAE. C. Poulsen (1934) appears to have been the first to indicate to trilobite workers that the family name SCUTELLIDAE already existed for echinoids and the solution that he recommended was to revive the family name GoLpuDAE for the trilobites. Stubblefield (1936) noticed these troubles and recommended the suppression of the long disused name Scute/lum and now, in hindsight, he regrets that he made no such proposal then to the International Com- mission; such a proposal now would be too belated to have any merit. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323 When the authorship of the systematic portions of the Trilobita volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology was being considered, this particular trilobite family was assigned to R. & E. Richter for treatment and I drew their attention to the anomalous family name. The result was that in 1955 they proposed the name SCUTELLUIDAE which, as Erben & Whittington (1967 : 231) rightly affirm, serves a Purpose that appears to be in accord with the intent of the subsequently published Article 55a of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted by the XVth ICZ. Emma Richter died in 1956 and Rudolf in 1957 but their contribution to the Treatise was submitted posthumously to the Editor-in-Chief under the family heading scUTELLUIDAE. That name, however, was opposed and replaced by THySANO- PELTIDAE Hawle and Corda, 1847 “nom. correct. Moore, herein ( pro THYSANOPELTIDES Hawle and Corda, 1847)”. This name THYSANOPELTIDES was itself a nomen oblitum and as stated by Erben & Whittington (1967 : 231) in the amended form THYSANOPELTIDAE, it has not yet received general acceptance to the exclusion of sCUTELLUIDAE. I therefore support Erben & Whittington in recommending that this name sCUTELLUIDAE be added to the Official List of Family-Group Names to avoid further confusion in Trilobite literature. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES POULEN, C. 1934. Medd. Gronland, 72 Anden Afd.: 34 STUBBLEFIELD, C. J. 1936. Biological Reviews, 11 : 436 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FINANCIAL REPORT 1966 The financial result for 1966 is satisfactory. Under Expenditure, Adminis- tration is the same as last year, while printing costs for the Bulletin are less by £275, and Office Expenditure is up by £390 from the need to provide additional facilities for the storage of publications. On the Income side, sales of the Bulletin are £400 higher and Interest is up by £130 due to the higher bank rate prevailing during 1966. There was also an UNESCO Grant of £356. Asa result, the Income and Expenditure Account shows an excess of income for the year of £1,115. It will be seen that for the first time for some years, there has been activity in the “ Official List ” Suspense Account due to the publication of the Second Instalment of the Lists. These were published late in the year and the return from sales is relatively small but will continue and, in accordance with practice, be credited to the Suspense Account. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. 324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR Incorporated under the Companies BALANCE SHEET— 1965 £ b. Sst: £) (S.ae Revenue Reserves— 10,000 General Reserve a aa ate a hs x= » 10,000:510).0) 3,284 “Official List” Suspense Account (per separate account) 1,691 1 4 4,098 Income and Expenditure Account (per separate account) 5,214 6 7 17,382 16,905 7 11 Special Donation unappropriated— 252 Balance at 31st December, 1965 .. os os te 252, 2a5 Current Liabilities— 1,029 Sundry Creditors .. a xs es co i 745 010 142 Subscriptions to Publications received in advance Pe 652 18 3 1,171 ——— ————— 1,397 19 1 £18,805 £18,555 9 3 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 gives a true and fair view of year ended on that date. ; Lee 4 (2) Proper books haye been kept and the accounts are in agreement therewith and give, in the prescribed Finspury Circus House, BLOMFIELD STREET, Lonpbon, E.C.2. 30th May, 1967 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Act, 1929 (Limited by Guarantee) 31st December, 1966 1965 £ 877 570 307 2,079 5,689 2,249 10,017 3,000 13,017 128 5,353 5,481 £18,805 Fixed Assets— Office Equipment— Book value at Ist July, 1948 and additions since at cost Less Depreciation and amount written off Investments at cost— £2,500 24° Savings Bonds belly £6,857 2s 11d British Transport 3% Stock 1968/73 £2,500 64% Exchequer Stock 1969" (£10,700) (Market Value at date £10,822) County Borough of Preston Temporary Loan Current Assets— £ 90 38 THE AUDITORS Amounts due for Publications at pesaeds valuation 664 10 6 Income Tax Recoverable 38°13" 5 Selective asad Tax Re- coverable 5 30 12 6 Balances at Bank and Cash in Hand.. (Note—The Stock of Publications has not been valued) ERS GRIFFIN N. D. RIL 979 611 2,078 5,689 2,248 10,016 > 733 4,436 16 5 14 11 Members of the Committee of Management 325 368 4 0 13,016 13 11 5,170 11 4 £18,555 9 3 ad the state of the Trust’s affairs at 31st December, 1966 and of the excess of income over expenditure for the manner, the information required by the Companies Act, 1948. W. B. KEEN & CO., Chartered Accountants 326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Income and Expenditure Account for EXPENDITURE Administration Expenses— Salaries, National Insurance, etc. .. Office Expenses Be Audit Fee .. Less Proportion allocated to “Official List” Depreciation of Office Equipment Printing and Distribution of Publications— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Balance, being Excess of Income over SS aoa for the year, carried down . ' at Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet Printing 2nd Instalment of “‘Official List” Proportion of Administration Expenses Balance carried forward to Balance Sheet a 3,367 1,238 Sama 4 'S.aae 3°06 Sue 52 10 0 4,658 50 1 8 0 0 4,608 1 8 41 0 0 1,714 14 8 6,363 16 4 1,115 16 1 £7,479 12 5 ————— 5,214 6 7 £5,214 6 7 “Official List” for the year ended £ 1,884 50 1,691 £3,625 ——SS ee al Hon? e | ROowm Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327 the year ended 31st December, 1966 1965 £ £7,203 ——_ 3,439 659 £4,098 ——__ Suspense Account 31st December, 1966 1965 £ 3,211 123 £3,334 — INCOME Ef sid: eu eSseb Gs Sales of Publications— International Code .. 56 a ne at * 658 10 7 Opinions and Declarations . . ate ae 52 oa 168 5 9 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature i me ae 5,413 13 1 Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature .. 3100.3 ——_ 6,243 19 8 Donations Be me Se aes Ae i ee 14 18 10 Interest Received on Investments (gross) .. ws oe 618 4 2 Interest on Bank Deposit a Sa es a a 246 8 7 Grant from U.N.E.S.C.O, per International Union of Biological Sciences .. ue “fF = de Bo SSG a2 £7,479 12 § —<—— Balance brought forward from 1965 . : at ie AS 4,098 10 6 Balance brought down. . os anv ae ere = L115 16. 1 £5,214 6 7 SSS ce se ds Balance brought forward from 1965 ae Pd Bs A 3,283 16 8 Sales of Publications . . ie 3 341 9 5 £3,625 6 1 =—— 328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE TYPE-SPECIES OF THE CONODONT GENUS POLYGNATHUS. (Z.N.(S.) 1796) (see volume 24, pages 239-243) By Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Klapper and his colleagues raise two sound objections (par. 10) to the alternative of designating a neotype for Polygnathus dubius Hinde, the type-species of the conodont genus Polygnathus. Clearly the same objections, and particularly their first, apply forcefully in principle to any other action. The lectotype of P. dubius is still in existence, and it is entire (as conodonts go!) but partly embedded in a matrix so that only one aspect can be seen. In many groups, the actual existence of an entire (lecto) holotype would be welcomed. The obvious step is to treat it in such manner that the other aspects can be studied, and the zoological assignment determined. Then and then only should the need of coming to the Commission be determined. : am opposed to dealing with the application until the zoology has been properly explored. REPLY TO COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF CORNUFER UNICOLOR TSCHUDI, 1838 (AMPHIBIA). Z.N.(S.) 1749 (see volume 23, pages 167-168, volume 24, page 192) By Richard G. Zweifel (The American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) I have shown that the type-species of the genus Cornufer, a name commonly applied to ranid frogs of the Pacific islands, is a species of leptodactylid frog of the West Indies (Zweifel, Copeia 1967 : 117-121). In order to preserve the well-established name Eleutherodactylus, which is a junior synonym of Cornufer, I requested that Cornufer be suppressed by the plenary powers. Darlington et al. (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 192) agree that Eleutherodactylus should be conserved, but wish to conserve Cornufer also because it “is celebrated in the biogeographical literature”. They propose that the Commission do this by suppressing all previous type designations for the genus Cornufer and designate a species commonly referred to Cornufer in the past (vitiensis Girard) as the type of the genus. The transfer of a generic name from the species and family with which it originally was associated to another species and family is a major exception to the rules of nomenclature, and I am not convinced that Darlington et a/. put forth a strong enough case to justify this action in the face of the alternative use of the name Platymantis. Retention of Cornufer would be defensible if the genus were of great importance in the literature or if there was the likelihood of serious confusion among workers using the specialized segment of the literature in which Cornufer assumes some importance; there is no evidence that either of these conditions obtains. Darlington et al. correctly observe that every writer who has dealt with the bio- geography of the Fijian frogs has used the name Cornufer, but it is not evident from their brief discussion that all of the writers they cite as examples used both Cornufer and Platymantis as valid genera for Fijian frogs. Therefore, any worker using these references need not be confused by the extention of Platymantis to include both Fijian species, any more than by the use of Cornufer for both. The question is whether a name’s being “celebrated in the biogeographical literature” warrants suspension of the rules of nomenclature. Indeed, one could argue that the name Platymantis, which shares prominence with Cornufer in the papers cited, is equally “‘celebrated”’. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 329 OPINION 835 MELANOPLUS STAL, 1873, ACRYDIUM FEMURRUBRUM DE GEER, 1773, AND GRYLLUS SANGUINIPES FABRICIUS, 1798 (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LISTS RULING.—(1) The generic name Melanoplus Stal, 1873 (gender: mascu- line), type-species by designation by Scudder, 1897, Acrydium femurrubrum de Geer, 1773, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1775. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) femurrubrum de Geer, 1773, as published in the binomen Acrydium femurrubrum (type-species of Melanoplus Stal, 1873) (Name No. 2220); (b) sanguinipes Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Gryllus san- guinipes (Name No. 2221). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1695) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Drs. D. K. McE. Kevan and V. R. Vickery in February 1965. The application was sent to the printer on 22 February 1965 and was published on 18 May 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 105-107. The proposals were supported by Dr. K. H. L. Key and Dr. R. L. Edwards (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 76). In his comment Dr. Key drew attention to a misunderstanding by the authors con- cerning the application of Article 23b of the Code. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 July 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)28 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 106. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 20 October 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Sabrosky, Lemche, Evans, Obruchev, Boschma, Mayr, Brinck, Simpson, Munroe, Tortonese, do Amaral, Uchida, Jaczewski, Mertens, Kraus, Alvarado, Ride, Forest. Negative votes—one (1): Binder. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Professor Bonnet returned a late affirmative vote. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. 330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Prof. E. Mayr (18.viii.67): “‘ It seems to me that Art. 23b does not strictly apply to this case since the junior synonym (bilituratus) was used for the migra- tory grasshopper only for the four years 1958-1961, and not for a fifty-year period.” Prof. P. Brinck (18.viti.67): ‘‘ This is a very attractive solution of the problem.” Dr. W. D. L. Ride (19.x.67): “‘ The Commission is being asked to apply Art. 23b, but its hand has been forced by those who have chosen to disregard Art. 23b (ii). This case serves to emphasize the importance of urgent action (both by ‘ discoverers ’ and by the Commission) in respect of cases involving this Article. Names in suspension under Article 23b (ii) can only result in a state of instability in nomenclature until their future is decided. Moreover, any published use of any name for such a taxon during the period of suspension of its oldest name must influence the subsequent decision by the Commission which must take into account universality and usage.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: femurrubrum, Acrydium, de Geer, 1773, Mém. Hist. Ins. 3 : 498, pl. 42, fig. 5 Melanoplus Stal, 1873, Recens. Orth. 1 : 79 sanguinipes, Gryllus, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst.: 195. The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Melanoplus Stal, 1873: Scudder, 1897, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 20 : 122. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)28 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 Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 835. Ww. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 30 October 1967 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331 OPINION 836 LEUCTRA STEPHENS, 1835 (INSECTA, PLECOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Leuctra Stephens, 1835, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Phryganea fusca Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Leuctra Stephens, 1835 (gender: feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Phryganea fusca Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1776. (3) The specific name fusca Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phryganea fusca (type-species of Leuctra Stephens, 1835) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2222. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1671) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Prof. P. Brinck and Dr. J. Illies in November 1964. The application was sent to the printer on 22 February 1965 and was published on 18 May 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 108-109. 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. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 July 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)29 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 209. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 20 October 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Sabrosky, Lemche, Evans, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Boschma, Mayr, Brinck, Munroe, Tortonese, do Amaral, Uchida, Mertens, Kraus, Binder, Alvarado, Ride, Forest. Negative votes—one (1): Simpson. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Commissioner Bonnet returned a late affirmative vote. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (2.viii.67): “ I vote for this because it is too late to make a counter suggestion. Inasmuch as Leuctra fusciventris Stephens was one of the originally included species, I should have preferred to designate that nominal species as type-species. If granted, this proposal would apparently leave L. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. 332 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature geniculata without a generic name, but I presume this will be taken care of elsewhere. I see no need for a neotype. Brinck (1949) was able to settle the identity of P. fusca without it.” Prof. G. G. Simpson (25.viii.67): ““ That two genera have been united under the single name Leuctra is a zoological, not nomenclatural, conclusion already reached in 1841. This proposal asks that the name be restricted to what is plainly (and has been since 1838) the wrong genus. It also seems to leave Leuctra, correctly and strictly speaking, without a name.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: fusca, Phryganea, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 549 Leuctra Stephens, 1835, ///. Brit. Ent. 6 : 144. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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. 836. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 31 October 1967 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF CHARAXES JOCASTE BUTLER (LEPIDOPTERA). (Z.N.(S.) 1806) (see volume 24, pages 255-256) By Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Proposed use of the plenary powers in this case evades the real question, and the matter of principle involved, as to whether Charaxes iocaste Butler, 1865 (not jocaste as stated in the title of the application, in the proposals on p. 256, and elsewhere in discussion) is or is not an available name under the circumstances of the 1865 publication. I believe that this point should be faced squarely. If the name be judged unavailable, then use of the plenary powers would be unnecessary; if it be judged available, then the Plenary Powers may be invoked. If one were to regard a group (sectional) description as making available any included nude species-group name, why then would not the mere combination with a previously described generic name likewise furnish, by association-indication, a similar group (generic) description? Rules stretched too far lose definition and precision. I prefer to regard C. iocaste Butler, 1865, as unavailable, it being without description or diagnosis of its own. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333 OPINION 837 NUPEDIA KARL, 1930 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Nupedia Karl, 1930, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Anthomyia infirma Meigen, 1826, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Nupedia Karl, 1930 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Anthomyia infirma Meigen, 1826, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1777. (3) The specific name infirma Meigen, 1826, as published in the binomen Anthomyia infirma (type-species of Nupedia Karl, 1930) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2223. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1691) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr. D. M. Ackland in January 1965. Mr. Ackland’s application was sent to the printer on 22 February 1965 and was published on 18 May 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 110-111. 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 proposals were supported by Mr. J. E. Collins. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 July 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)30 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 111. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 20 October 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Sabrosky, Lemche, Evans, Obruchev, Boschma, Mayr, Brinck, Simpson, Munroe, Tortonese, do Amaral, Uchida, Jaczewski, Mertens, Kraus, Binder, Alvarado, Ride, Forest. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Prof. Bonnet returned a late affirmative vote. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: infirma, Anthomyia, Meigen, 1826, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins. 5 : 176. Nupedia Karl, 1930, Zool. Anz. 86 : 174 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. 334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)30 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. 837. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 31 October 1967 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335 OPINION 838 HETEROTRYPA NICHOLSON, 1879, AND PERONOPORA NICHOLSON, 1881 (BRYOZOA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850, is hereby designated to be the type of that genus; (b) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Peronopora Nicholson, 1881, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Chaetetes decipiens Rominger, 1866, is hereby designated to be the type 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) Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879 (gender : feminine), type-species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Monticulipora frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850 (Name No. 1778); (b) Peronopora Nicholson, 1881 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1) above, Chaetetes decipiens Rominger, 1866 (Name No. 1779). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) frondosa d’Orbigny, 1850, as published in the binomen Monticulipora frondosa (type-species of Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879) (Name No. 2224); (b) decipiens Rominger, 1866, as published in the binomen Chaetetes decipiens (type-species of Peronopora Nicholson, 1881) (Name No. 2225). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1693) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Drs. John Utgaard and Richard S. Boardman in January 1965. The application was sent to the printer on 22 February 1965 and was published on 18 May 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 112-118. 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 comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 July 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote on Voting Paper (67)31 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 117. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 20 October 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. 336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Sabrosky, Lemche, Evans, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Boschma, Mayr, Brinck, Simpson, Munroe, Tortonese, do Amaral, Uchida, Mertens, Kraus, Binder, Alvarado, Ride, Forest. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Prof. Bonnet returned a late affirmative vote. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: decipiens, Chaetetes, Rominger, 1866, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1866 : 116, 117. frondosa, Monticulipora, d’Orbigny, 1850, Prodr. Paléont. 1 : 25. Heterotrypa Nicholson, 1879, On the Structure and Affinities of the Tabulate Corals: 291, 293. Peronopora Nicholson, 1881, On the Structure and Affinities of the Genus Monti- culipora: 100, 102. . CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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. 838. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 31 October 1967 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 337 OPINION 839 ANTHANASSA SCUDDER, 1875 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): DESIG- NATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Anthanassa Scudder, 1875, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Melitaea texana Edwards, 1863, is hereby designated to be the type of that genus. (2) The generic name Anthanassa Scudder, 1875 (gender: feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Melitaea texana Edwards, 1863, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1780. (3) The specific name texana Edwards, 1863, as published in the binomen Melitaea texana (type-species of Anthanassa Scudder, 1875) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2226. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1697) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr. F. Martin Brown in March 1965, Mr. Brown’s application was sent to the printer on 20 May 1965 and was published on 13 August 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 192-194. 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 eight entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 July 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)32 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 193. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 20 October 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Sabrosky, Lemche, Evans, Obruchey, Boschma, Mayr, Brinck, Simpson, Tortonese, do Amaral, Uchida, Jaczewski, Mertens, Kraus, Binder, Alvarado, Ride, Forest. Negative votes—one (1): Munroe. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Commissioner Bonnet returned a late affirmative vote. In returning his negative vote, Dr. E. G. Munroe made the following comment: “I believe that as Forbes has already followed one of the legitimate solutions of this dilemma, it will tend to increase confusion rather than to reduce it if the plenary Powers are used to reverse his action.” ee Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. 338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Anthanassa Scudder, 1875, Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Hist. 2 : 268 texana, Melitaea, Edwards, 1863, Proc. ent. Soc. Philad. 2 : 81 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)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. 839. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 1 November 1967 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339 OPINION 840 AMBLEMA RAFINESQUE, 1820 (LAMELLIBRANCHIATA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Amblema Rafinesque, 1819, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Amblema Rafinesque, 1820 (gender: feminine), type- species, by designation by Frierson, 1914, Amblema costata Rafinesque, 1820, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1781. (3) The specific name plicata Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio plicata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2227. (4) The generic name Amblema Rafinesque, 1819, 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 1915. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1699) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Drs. Arthur H. Clarke, Jr., and William J. Clench in May 1965. The application was sent to the printer on 20 May 1965 and was published on 13 August 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 196-197. 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. The application was supported by Dr. F. R. Woodward (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 7), Dr. H. D. Murray, Mr. H. D. Athearn and Prof. J. B. Burch. Drs. Clarke and Clench revised their proposals, requesting addition to the Official List of Unio plicata Say, instead of Amblema costata Rafinesque in a note published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 341. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 July 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)34 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 197 and revised in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 341. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 20 October 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Sabrosky, Lemche, Evans, Obruchev, Boschma, Mayr, Brinck, Munroe, Tortonese, do Amaral, Uchida, Jaczewski, Mertens, Kraus, Binder, Alvarado, Ride, Forest. Negative votes—one (1); Simpson. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Commissioner Bonnet returned a late affirmative vote. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. 340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature In returning his negative vote, Prof. G. G. Simpson made the following comment: “I would have voted for the original proposal, but the revision is unjustified and inadvisable. On the authors’ own showing, it seeks to suppress a name ‘ universally ’ used, and solely on grounds of cryptic priority, which the Commission could and should negate in favour of stability.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Amblema Rafinesque, 1819, J. Phys. Chim. Hist. nat. (Paris) 88 : 427 Amblema Rafinesque, 1820, Ann. gén. Sci. phys., Bruxelles, 5 : 314 plicata, Unio, Say, 1817, Nicholson’s Ency. (Amer. ed. 1), art. Conchology, pl. 3, fig. 2. The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Amblema Rafinesque, 1820: Frierson, 1914, Nautilus 28 : 7 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)34 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and the decision so taken, being the decision of the Inter- national Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 840. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 2 November 1967 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341 OPINION 841 VOLUTA PERTUSA LINNAEUS, 1758, VOLUTA MORIO LINNAEUS, 1767, VOLUTA RUFFINA LINNAEUS, 1767, AND BULLA CONOIDEA LINNAEUS, 1767: 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) pertusa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Voluta pertusa; (b) morio Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Voluta morio; (c) ruffina Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Voluta ruffina; (d) conoidea Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Bulla conoidea. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, with the Name Numbers specified: (a) pertusa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Voluta pertusa (Name No. 885); (b) morio Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Voluta morio (Name No. 886); (c) ruffina Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Voluta ruffina (Name No. 887); (d) conoidea Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Bulla conoidea (Name No. 888). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1700) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr. Walter O. Cernohorsky in May 1965. Mr. Cernohorsky’s application was sent to the printer on 20 May 1965 and was published on 13 August 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 198-203. 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. The proposals were supported by Dr. Jean M. Cate. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 July 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)35 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 202-203. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 20 October 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—eighteen (18), received in the following order: Holthuis, Vokes, Lemche, Evans, Obruchev, Boschma, Mayr, Brinck, Simpson, Tor- tonese, Munroe, do Amaral, Uchida, Jaczewski, Mertens, Binder, Alvarado, Forest. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. 342 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Negative votes—four (4): China, Sabrosky, Kraus, Ride. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs. Commissioner Bonnet returned a late affirmative vote. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (2.viii.67): “1am opposed to Commission action on cases of nomina dubia. Should not these cases be delayed until the Commission can rule on my application regarding nomina dubia in general? ” Dr. Henning Lemche (3.viti.67): “1 favour the suppression because of the many serious but unsuccessful attempts that have been made to identify these species.” Prof. P. Brinck (18.viii.67): “ I vote for the proposal with some doubt, as the applicant has not consulted nor refers to the Upsala collection of Linnaean material. It is rich in molluscs and has been listed by Dr. Alec Holm. Micro- films of the material have been distributed to various institutions. A copy is with the Linnean Society in London. The Upsala collection contains i.a. the material from the Museum Lud. Ulricae.” Prof. G. G. Simpson (25.viii.67): “ This action is doubtless within the powers of the Commission. If one wanted to be legalistic, however, one could object to the proposal of suppression on grounds that these are nomina dubia. There is no rule or ruling that nomina dubia are to be suppressed ipso facto, and the implication that this is so is virtually a clandestine amendment of the Code (see also Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 273).” Dr. Otto Kraus (16.x.67): “‘ As the applicant explains there seems to be no doubt that all four names should be regarded as nomina dubia. There is not even one case in which they threaten stability at present, so I do not understand the necessity of action by the Commission.” Dr. W. D. L. Ride (19.x.67): “In my opinion, the plenary powers should not be used to suppress a nomen dubium merely because it cannot be fixed to a taxon because there is no type specimen. Neotype selection provides for this situation within the normal provisions of the Code and it should be used unless all possible action of this nature will result in confusion. The author has not demonstrated that confusion will result in these cases although it does appear implicit in two of them. If he can demonstrate such confusion, he should reapply. Certainly, the case of V. morio can be settled without confusion by the selection of an undoubted specimen of V. caffra; and that of B. conoidea by a specimen of V. dactylus (with appropriate action by a first reviser to settle priority). ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: conoidea, Bulla, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1185 morio, Voluta, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1193 pertusa, Voluta, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 732 ruffina, Voluta, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (67)35 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. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 November 1967 344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CELLARIA ELLIS & SOLANDER, 1786 (POLYZOA): ITS TYPE, AND THE NAMES OF THREE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 1814 By J. S. Ryland (Department of Zoology, University College of Swansea, Wales) The genus Cellaria was introduced by Ellis & Solander (1786 : 18), but a study of the history of the species concerned must start with Ellis’ “* Natural History of the Corallines”. Ellis (1755 : 46), under the heading Articulated Corallines, No. 1, actually described two species clearly recognizable as belong- ing to the genus Cellaria in its currently accepted sense: (a) “Bugle Coralline”’. First synonym: “Corallina fistulosa fragilis crassior J.B.” [Bauhin]. Hereafter referred to as the Larger Bugle Coralline. (b) “A smaller species of the same, which differs only in the diameter of the branches”. First synonym: “Corallina fistulosa fragilis subtilior. J.B.” [Bauhin]. Hereafter called the Smaller Bugle Coralline. The Bugle Coralline is illustrated by five figures in Pl. XXIII, viz. a and A-D. Fig. a shows “the natural size of the larger Bugle Coralline”, A—C, parts of it magnified. D is not mentioned in the text, but is obviously the same form. It seems clear, therefore, that the plate illustrates the Larger Bugle Coralline only, and this is a conclusion of importance. 2. In the 10th edition of Systema Naturae, Linnaeus (1758 : 804) intro- duced Eschara fistulosa, based on references to Ellis, Bauhin, Ray, Plukenet and Barrelierus, in that order. Harmer (1923 : 301-3) has examined the works cited in this synonymy and found that, with the exception of Ellis’ Bugle Coralline, the species concerned cannot be precisely identified, being, moreover, not always referable to the genus Ce/laria or even to the phylum Polyzoa. He concluded that the Linnaean species must be considered as having been founded on the work of Ellis. This, in fact, accords well with what is known of the relationship between Ellis and Linnaeus, for the latter consistently based his species of Zoophyte upon the descriptions and admirable illustrations in Ellis’ book (Harmer, 1930). The citation of the first synonym reads: “ Ellis corall. 46, n.1, t. 23, f. A”’; and the second “‘ Bauh. hist. 3, p. 811. Corallina fistulosa fragilis crassior ”’. These two entries, especially the figure reference to Ellis, and the “ crassior ” from Bauhin place it firmly beyond doubt that Eschara fistulosa is the Larger Bugle Coralline of Ellis, which was the conclusion reached by Harmer (1923). 3. In the Elenchus Zoophytorum, Pallas (1766 : 61) introduced Cellularia salicornia, which he divided into two sections: (x) [hereafter referred to as C. salicornia («)] for the Larger Bugle Coralline of Ellis, citing Pl. 23 and using the description “ crassior ” (B) [hereafter referred to as C. salicornia (B)] for the Smaller Bugle Coralline, as evidenced by “ subtilior ” and “‘ tenuior ” in the synonymy. Pallas, however, made the first of the series of blunders which have charac- terized the history of the genus Ce//aria, for he placed Eschara fistulosa L. in the synonymy of C. salicornia (B), instead of («) where it properly belonged. It will, however, be observed that, ignoring for the moment the actions of later Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345 authors, under the provisions of Art. 17 (2) of the International Rules, C. salicornia Pallas is available as the valid name of a species. Indeed, considering Linnaeus (1758) and Pallas (1766) alone, the Larger Bugle Coralline should be called C. fistulosa L., and the Smaller C. salicornia Pallas. 4. Inthe 12th edition of Systema Naturae, Linnaeus (1767 : 1302) classified his species as Tubularia fistulosa. 5. The genus Ce/laria was introduced by Ellis and Solander (1786 : 18) for 18 species, most of which had been included by Pallas in his genus Ce//ularia. Thus Cellaria may well have been a deliberate alteration in spelling of Ce/lularia, but it has been subsequently treated as an independent introduction. Species 13 listed was Cellaria farciminoides, for which two synonyms were quoted: Bugle Coralline. Ellis Corallin, pag. 46, tab. 23 Tubularia fistulosa. Linn. Syst. Nat. Ed. 12. pag. 1302. Clearly then, C. farciminoides is again a name for the Larger Bugle Coralline of Ellis, and is synonymous with C. salicornia (x) of Pallas, although the Elenchus was not cited. The other species included have been referred to various modern genera. 6. Lamarck (1801 : 382) considerably restricted the size and scope of Cellaria, limiting it to something near to its modern meaning. He listed two species only: (1) C. salicornia, with synonyms C. farciminoides Ell. & Sol., and Tubularia Jistulosa L. (2) C. cirrata Ell. & Sol., later designated as type-species of Menipea, see Harmer (1923). 7. Lamouroux (1816 : 127) both defined the genus and designated a type- species by observing: ‘‘ Sai conservé le nom de Cellaire au groupe dont les Polypiers avaient pour type le Ce/laria Salicornia”’. Moreover, Lamouroux recognized the distinction between C. salicornia («) and C. salicornia (B), and it was specifically the former to which he restricted Pallas’ name. So far as nomination of type-species was concerned, Lamouroux was perfectly consistent. The only Cellaria in his sense listed by Ellis & Solander (1786 : 18, 26) was C. farciminoides, but Lamouroux’ designation is valid in accordance with Art. 69a (iv) of the International Rules, since C. farciminoides was listed as a synonym. But, since both C. farciminoides and C. salicornia (%) are junior objective synonyms of C. fistulosa (all three being founded on PI. 23 in Ellis, 1755), the latter is type-species ipso facto. 8. Lamouroux’ restriction of Cellaria and designation of type-species would have been admirable had he employed either of the names fistulosa or farciminoides; instead, he used salicornia restricted to Pallas’ division («). This had the effect of equating C. salicornia with C. fistulosa and C. farciminoides, all as names for the Larger Bugle Coralline. This is exactly what should not have happened (final lines of 3. above). As corollary he then introduced C. sali- cornioides for C. salicornia (B) emphasizing that it was a distinct species, and this name will be further considered in 13-15 below. 9. Fleming in British Animals (1828 : 534) described one species, using the Linnaean name fistulosa placed in a new genus Farcimia. It is, however, 346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature impossible to be sure which of the two he was describing, although he cited Ellis (1755, Pl. 23). He stated that the diameter of the branches was “ not exceeding the twentieth of an inch”. In the Smaller Bugle Coralline the maximum diameter is about 0-6 mm. (1/40th in.), and in the Larger Bugle Coralline about 1-0 mm. (1/25th in.). His definition thus covers both, but appears to indicate that he had material of the larger species, though this may well have been mixed with specimens of the Smaller Bugle Coralline. Johnston, in the Ist edition of British Zoophytes (1838 : 295), likewise described one species, but called it Farcimia salicornia. The illustrations (PI. 37, fig. 6-7) are so indifferent—greatly inferior to those of Ellis (1755)—that it is impossible to be sure which species was intended. Nevertheless, it was evidently taken as the smaller species by Hassall (1840), who introduced Farcimia sinuosa, expressly stating that it was larger than F. salicornia. In the more important 2nd edition of British Zoophytes, Johnston (1847 : 355) listed two species, this time placed in the genus Salicornaria Cuvier. The first, now called S. farciminoides, corresponds to the Smaller Bugle Coralline, whilst the second, corresponding to the Larger Bugle Coralline, was S. sinuosa. Busk (1852) likewise employed Salicornaria farciminoides, treating S. sinuosa as a variety of it. A definite pattern had now been established. The Smaller Bugle Coralline is the commoner species in British waters, and this was taken as being the only one described by Fleming (1828) and Johnston (1847). The name applied to it throughout this period was one of three ( fistulosa, salicornia and farciminoides), all of which had been given or subsequently restricted to the Larger Bugle Coralline. Hassall (1840) unaware of the transposition which had occurred, redescribed the Larger Bugle Coralline as F. sinuosa, and his name was used by Johnston (1847) and Busk (1852) writing soon afterwards. 10. Following d’Orbigny (1851), Smitt (1868 : 362) and Hincks (1880 : 106) utilized the genus Ce/l/aria, but reverted to the Linnaean epithet fistulosa in recognition of its priority. Both, however, accepted established practice and applied the name to the smaller species. The influence of these latter two authors has been enormous. Smitt’s Critical Catalogue remained the only comprehensive work on Arctic-Boreal Atlantic Polyzoa until 1962, whilst Hincks’ British Marine Polyzoa remains to this day the most complete account of cold-temperate European species. Having perpetuated an error which no one prior to Harmer (1923) attempted to correct, it is clearly impossible now to restore, as Harmer suggested, the Linnaean name to the Larger Bugle Coralline of Ellis, for which it was originally proposed. 11. In writing this historical summary, I have drawn freely on the earlier review by Harmer (1923). His conclusions were: (a) that Eschara fistulosa L. was based on the Larger Bugle Coralline of Ellis, and should replace C. sinuosa Hassall as the name employed for that species; (b) that Cellularia salicornia («) Pallas, type-species of Cellaria selected by Lamouroux, is an objective synonym of E. fistulosa. The latter was then regarded as being the type-species; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 347 (c) that the name C. salicornia Pallas should be restricted to the (6) form (noted by Hastings (1947) as invalid, since it ignored Lamouroux’ earlier restriction to the («) form). To have implemented (a) would, as stated in 10. above, have created enor- mous confusion, with a well-established name being transferred from one well- known species to another. (b) has been accepted; and so has (c) by some authors (Marcus, 1940 (discussion 1950); Prenant & Bobin, 1966), despite the objection raised by Hastings (1947). The result in their works has been the displacement of the Linnaean name from use for the smaller species in favour of Pallas’ name salicornia. Other authors (Hastings, 1947; Lagaaij, 1952; Buge, 1957; Marine Biological Association, 1957; Gautier, 1962; Galopim de Carvalho, 1963) have used the citation C. fistulosa auctt. (non L.), or its equi- valent!. Authors in both groups have continued to use Hassall’s name, C. sinuosa, for the Larger Bugle Coralline. 12. The status quo is wholly unacceptable, because either no species at all, or else the wrong one, is being called by the name of the type-species C. fistulosa. The situation can only be remedied by decision of the International Commission either: (a) suppressing altogether the name Eschara fistulosa Linn., 1758 (= Tubularia fistulosa Linn., 1767); or (b) transferring the name so that it applies not to the Larger Bugle Coralline, but to the Smaller Bugle Coralline, as in recent literature. Under (a): (i) the type-species is not altered, but it must be called by one of its synonyms; (ii) it is undesirable that the name employed should be the objective synonym and second oldest name, C. salicornia Pallas, despite its designation by Lamouroux, because it is now being used by some as the name for the Smaller Bugle Coralline; (iii) the remaining objective synonym is C. farciminoides Ell. & Sol., which undoubtedly has the strongest claim. Its use in the past as the name of the Smaller Bugle Coralline has been unimportant but, on the other hand, it is not the name currently in use for the Larger Bugle Coralline; (iv) C. sinuosa is employed at the present time as the name of the Larger Bugle Coralline. As a subjective synonym, it has, however, no direct claim to become type-species of the genus. Thus, despite the undesirability of changing an established name, in the long term it would probably be better to suppress C. sinuosa and restore the older name C. farciminoides; 1Whichever name is to be used, it must be linked to the type specimen of C. salicornia Pallas. There is no lectotype available, and a neotype should be chosen from material of the Smaller Bugle Coralline. Specimen 1854.11.15.249 in the British Museum (Natural History) may have been illustrated by Busk (1852), but is not sufficiently good for designation. No specimen can be located which matches Hincks’ (1880) figures. Accordingly, the proposed neotype is the specimen labelled Salicornaria farciminoides, collected by Mrs. Gatty in Dublin Bay, registered number 1899.7.1.1572. 348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (v) whichever of the courses (iii) or (iv) were adopted, C. salicornia would be the valid name for the Smaller Bugle Coralline. In view of the doubt thrown by Hastings (1947) on the identity of C. salicornioides Lamx. (see 13. to 15. below), this name should not be considered as available for the Smaller Bugle Coralline of Ellis. Under (b): (vi) the Smaller Bugle Coralline would be named C. fistulosa in accordance with much past usage; (vii) the name C. salicornia Pallas, having become ambiguous, would have to be suppressed; (viii) the name for the Larger Bugle Coralline would be either C. farciminoides or C. sinuosa as in (iii) or (iv) above; (ix) it would have to be decided whether the type-species was C. fistulosa in its mew sense, thereby involving another species, or whether it remained the Larger Bugle Coralline under the name decided in (viii) above. The arguments which perhaps weight the balance in favour of the first alterna- tive, 12(a) above, are: (x) that the type-species then remains unambiguously the Larger Bugle Coralline, especially if the name farciminoides be employed; (x1) C. salicornia was introduced by Pallas for two species. Alternative (v) merely decides to which it should apply; (vi), however, removes a name from one species and applies it to another. 13. Further difficulties remain. When designating Cellularia salicornia (a) Pallas as type-species of Cellaria Ellis & Solander, Lamouroux (1816 : 127) introduced Cellaria salicornioides for Cellularia salicornia(B). But Lamouroux’ specimen, from the Mediterranean, may not have been the Smaller Bugle Coralline of Ellis, but another slender species. Whether or not this originally constituted a valid reason for rejecting salicornioides as a synonym of salicornia (B), subsequent usage has certainly made it so. The whole problem has been carefully considered by Hastings (1947). 14. A species was figured by Savigny (Audouin, 1826), which Audouin referred to C. salicornioides Lamx. D’Orbigny (1851), however, considered that it was not that species, and introduced a new name C. savignyi. Later, Busk (1858) described Nellia johnsoni from Madeira, soon (1859) transferring it to Cellaria. Hincks (1880: 112) used the combination Cellaria johnsoni. Hastings established beyond doubt that C. johnsoni is a junior synonym of C. savignyi, but was unable to decide whether this in turn is a junior synonym of C. salicornioides Lamx. This uncertainty has led to the unsatisfactory citation of the species as C. salicornioides Audouin (? Lamouroux) or the equivalent (Hastings, 1947; Marine Biological Association, 1957; Gautier, 1962; Galopim de Carvalho, 1963; Prenant & Bobin, 1966). That the last three of these works, by authors that do or have worked in France, employ this attribution may be taken to indicate that there is no Lamouroux specimen available, and therefore no solution, other than application to the International Commission. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349 (a) to regard Cellaria Salicornioides Lamx. as unrecognizable, and to request its suppression by the International Commission. C, Savignyi designate a neotype of C. salicornioides Lamx., such that it becomes unambiguously the senior Synonym of C. savignyi d’Orb., and C. by recent authors (cited in 13, above). 16. The Principal works involved in the foregoing discussion are cited in the following Synonymies of the three species involved: (a) Bugle Coralline: Ellis, 1755 : 46, PI, XXIII Eschara fistulosa Linnaeus, 1758 : 804 Cellularia salicornia (x) Pallas, 1766 : 61 Tubularia fistulosa: Linnaeus, 1767 : 1302 Cellaria farciminoides Ellis & Solander, 1786 : 26 Cellaria salicornia: Lamarck, 1801 : 382 Cellaria salicornia: Lamouroux, 1816 : 126 Farcimia sinuosa Hassall, 1840 : 172, Pl. VI, 1-2 Salicornaria sinuosa: Johnston, 1847 : 356, Pl. LXVI, 8 Salicornaria farciminoides, var. %: Busk, 1852: 17, Pl. LXIv, 22 Cellaria sinuosa, Hassall: Hincks, 1880, 109, PI. XIII, 5-8 Cellaria fistulosa (L.): Harmer, 1923 - 303 Cellaria sinuosa (Hassall): Lagaaij, 1952 : 48, py, 4,45 Cellaria sinuosa (Hassal 1840): Buge, 1957 : 195, pl. VIII, 6 Cellaria sinuosa (Hassall); Marine Biological Association 1957 : 349 Cellaria sinuosa (Hassall) 1840 - Gautier, 1962 : 73 Cellaria sinuosa (Hassal, 1840): Galopim de Carvalho, 1963 : 7, fig. 2 Cellaria sinuosa (Hassall, 1841): Prenant & Bobin, 1966 : 375, fig. 122 (b) Smaller Bugle Coralline: Ellis, 1755 : 46 Cellularia salicornia (B) Pallas, 1766 : 61 [?] Cellaria salicornioides Lamouroux, 1816 : 127 Farcimia fistulosa: Fleming, 1828 : 534 Mr. Johnsc itates j : i ji i? to be one of them. ?The legend to PI. LXIV is correct, but in the text (pp. 16-17), Busk erroneously refers his var, « to fig, 3, 350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Farcimia salicornia: Johnston, 1838 : 295, Pl. XX XVII, 6-7 Salicornaria farciminoides: Johnston, 1847 : 355, Pl. LX VI, 6-7 Salicornaria farciminoides: Busk 1852 : 16, Pl. LXIV, 1-31 Cellaria fistulosa (Lin.): Smitt, 1868 : 362, 368, Pl. XX, 18-20 Cellaria fistulosa, Linnaeus: Hincks, 1880, 106, Pl. XIII, 1-4 Cellaria salicornia (Pallas): Harmer, 1923 : 303 Cellaria salicornia (Pall.): Marcus, 1940 : 157, fig. 84; 1950 : 11 Cellaria fistulosa auct. (non Linné 1758): Buge, 1957 : 196, Pl. VIII, 5 Cellaria fistulosa Hincks (? not L.): Marine Biological Association, 1957 : 349 Cellaria fistulosa auct. (non Linné 1758): Gautier, 1962 : 71 Cellaria fistulosa auct.: Galopim de Carvalho, 1963 : 11, fig. 4 Cellaria salicornia (Pallas, 1766): Prenant & Bobin, 1966 : 378, fig. 123 (c) [2] Cellaria salicornioides Lamouroux, 1816 : 127 Cellaria salicornioides: Audouin, 1826 : 236, Savigny, Pl. VI, 71-5 Cellaria savignyi d’Orbigny, 1851 : 28 Nellia Johnsoni Busk, 1858 : 125, Pl. XIX, 2-2a Cellaria Johnsoni Busk, 1859 : 65, Pl. XXII, 4-5 Salicornaria Johnsoni Busk, 1860 : 280, Pl. XXVIII, 4-5 Cellaria Johnsoni, Busk: Hincks, 1880, 112, Pl. XIII, 9-12 Cellaria salicornioides Audouin, ? Lamouroux: Hastings, 1947 : 218, Pl. IIA Cellaria_salicornioides Audouin (? Lamouroux): Marine Biological Association, 1957 : 349 Cellaria salicornioides Audouin 1826: Gautier, 1962 : 72 Cellaria salicornioides Audouin 1826, ? Lamouroux 1816: Galopim de Carvalho, 1963, 16, fig. 5 Cellaria salicornioides (? Lamouroux, 1816, Savigny et Audouin, 1826): Prenant & Bobin, 1966 : 382, fig. 124 17. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is re- quested to use its plenary powers to decide which of the following propositions appear, in its view, best suited to ensure nomenclatorial stability in the genus Cellaria: (1) [salicornia and farciminoides adopted] (a) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy the specific name fistulosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Eschara fistulosa; (b) to designate a neotype of Cellularia salicornia Pallas, 1766, as indicated in 11. above (p. 347, footnote), in accordance with the proposal of Harmer (1923) to restrict the specific name salicornia Pallas, 1766, to section (B) of his species; (c) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Cellaria Ellis and Solander, 1786 (gender: feminine), type-species designated by Lamouroux, 1816 (subject to (1)(a) and (b) above), Cellaria farciminoides Ellis and Solander, 1786; 1The legend to PI. LXIV is correct, but in the text (pp. 16-17), Busk erroneously refers his var. « to fig. 3. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 351 (2) [fistulosa and farciminoides adopted] (a) to designate a neotype of Eschara fistulosa Linnaeus, 1758, as indicated in 11. above (p. 347, footnote), in accordance with current usage; (b) to designate a neotype of Cellularia salicornia Pallas, 1766, as indicated in 11. above (p. 347, footnote), in accordance with the proposal of Harmer (1923) to restrict the specific name salicornia Pallas, 1766, to section (B) of his species; (c) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Cellaria Ellis and Solander, 1786 (gender: feminine), type-species designated by Lamouroux, 1816 (subject to (2)(a) and (b) above), Cellaria farciminoides Ellis and Solander, 1786; (3) [salicornia and sinuosa adopted] (a) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy the specific name fistulosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Eschara fistulosa; (b) to designate a neotype of Cellularia salicornia Pallas, 1766, as indicated in 11. above (p. 347, footnote), in accordance with the proposal of Harmer (1923) to restrict the specific name salicornia Pallas, 1766, to section (B) of his species; (c) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy the specific name farciminoides Ellis and Solander, 1786, as published in the binomen Cellaria farci- minoides; (d) to designate Farcimia sinuosa Hassall, 1840, type-species of Cellaria Ellis and Solander, 1786; (e) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Cellaria Ellis and Solander, 1786 (gender: feminine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in 3(d) above, Farcimia sinuosa Hassall, 1840; (4) [ fistulosa and sinuosa adopted] (a) to designate a neotype of Eschara fistulosa Linnaeus, 1758, as indicated in 11. above (p. 347, footnote), in accordance with current usage; (b) to designate a neotype of Cellularia salicornia Pallas, 1766, as indicated in 11. above (p. 347, footnote), in accordance with the proposal of Harmer (1923) to restrict the specific name salicornia Pallas, 1766, to section (B) of his species; (c) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy the specific name farciminoides Ellis and Solander, 1786, as published in the binomen Cellaria farcimin- oides; (d) to designate Farcimia sinuosa Hassall, 1840, type-species of Cellaria Ellis and Solander, 1786; 352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (e) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Cellaria Ellis and Solander, 1786 (gender: feminine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (4)(d) above, Farcimia sinuosa Hassall, 1840. And the International Commission is also requested: (5) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy the specific name salicornioides Lamouroux, 1816, as published in the binomen Cellaria salicornioides; or (6) to designate a neotype of Cellaria salicornioides Lamouroux, as indicated in 15. above (p. 349, footnote). 18. I should like to thank Dr. Anna B. Hastings and Miss Patricia L. Cook for their helpful comments on the draft of this paper. REFERENCES Aupbouin, V. 1826. Description de l’Egypte, Hist. nat., 1 (4), 225-244 BuGe, E. 1957. Mém. Mus. natn. Hist. nat. NS, C, 6, 1-435 Busk, G. 1852. Catalogue of Marine Polyzoa in the Collection of the British Museum, 1 : 1-54 — 1858. Q. JI. microsc. Sci., 6 : 124-130 —— 1859. Q. Jl. microsc. Sci., 7 : 65-67 — 1860. Q. JI. microsc. Sci., 8 : 280-285 Exuis, J. 1755. Natural History of the Corallines, 103 pp. Exuts, J., and SOLANDER, D. 1786. Natural History of Zoophytes, 208 pp. FLEMING, J. 1828. British Animals, 565 pp. GALOPIM DE CARVALHO, A. M. 1963. Revta Fac. Ciénc. Univ. Lisb., Ser. 2, C, 11, 1-28 Gautier, Y. V. 1962. Bryozoaires Chilostomes en Méditerranée occidentale, 434 pp. Harmer, S. F. 1923. J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.), 35 : 293-361 — 1930. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond., 141 : 68-118 Hassa_, A. H. 1840. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., 6 : 166-175 Hastincs, A. B. 1947. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., Ser. 11, 13 : 217-241 Hincks, T. 1880. British Marine Polyzoa, 601 pp. JOHNSTON, G. 1838. British Zoophytes, 341 pp. — 1847. British Zoophytes (ed. 2), 488 pp. LAGAAW, R. 1952. Meded. geol. Sticht., N.S., C, 5 (5) : 1-233 Lamarck, J. B. P. A. DE. 1801. Animaux sans vertébres Lamouroux, J. V. F. 1816. Histoire des Polypiers coralligénes flexibles, 558 pp. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae (ed. 10), 1, 824 pp. —— 1767. Systema Naturae (ed. 12), 1, 1327 pp. Marcus, E. 1940. Danm. Fauna, 46, 401 pp. — 1950. Vidensk. Meddr. dansk naturh. Foren., 112, 1-34 MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. 1957. Plymouth Marine Fauna (ed. 3), 457 pp. D’OrsiGny, A. 1851. Paléontologie Frangaise. Terrains Cretacés, 5 : 1-188 PaLias, P. S. 1766. Elenchus Zoophytorum, 451 pp. PRENANT, M., and Bosin, G. 1966. Faune Fr., 68, 647 pp. Smitt, F. A. 1868. Ofvers K. Vetensk.-Akad. Forh., 24 : 279-429 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 353 ELIPESURUS SCHOMBURGK, 1843 (PISCES): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1825 By Mariano N. Castex, S. J. (Colegio maximo de San José, San Miguel, (E.G.S.M.), Argentina) The genus Elipesurus Schomburgk, 1843 was established on a single species Elipesurus spinicauda Schomburgk, 1843, based on a figure in Schomburgk. This species therefore becomes the type-species by monotypy. The identity of the species has remained uncertain ever since. 2. In 1865 Dumeril redescribed the generic taxon under the name Para- trygon based again on a single nomen dubium, Raja ajeriba Walbaum, 1792 which is the type-species by monotypy. 3. In 1878 Garman established the generic name Potamotrygon for the Same taxon with three species, P. humboldti (with Trygon hystrix Miiller & Henle, 1841, in synonymy), P. motoro Miiller & Henle, 1841, and P. dumerilii Castelnau 1855. He did not fix a type-species but Fowler cited Trygon hystrix Miiller & Henle as the type in 1948. At the same time Garman established the family-group POTAMOTRYGONES in the TRYGONIDAE. Garman stated that Elipesurus (sic) spinicauda Schomburgk was probably a mutilated specimen of one of the varieties of Potamotrygon dumerilii Castelnau, 1855. There is no doubt that Garman used a new name Potamotrygon and ignored the available name Paratrygon Dumeril, 1865 because the latter was based on the nomen dubium Raja ajereba Walbaum. 4. In 1870 Giinther emended the name Elipesurus to Ellipesurus and was followed by Ribeiro 1907 who placed the genus with Dasyatis Rafinesque, 1810 in the family DASYATIDAE. 5. In 1913 Garman changed his mind and adopted the name Elipesurus Schomburgk for E. spinicauda Schomburgk, with the words: “ Though it is a doubtful species, it is one that, like Elipesurus strogylopterus, collectors may yet hope to secure.” Garman doubtfully included Trygon strogylopterus Schomburgk, 1843 in the genus Elipesurus and raised his Potamotrygones to family rank, POTAMOTRY- GONIDAE on page 415. 6. In 1948 Fowler adopted the name Elipesurus Schomburgk with type- species E. spinicauda Schomburgk for Trygon strogylopterus Schomburgk. Elipesurus Schomburgk cannot, therefore, be regarded as a nomen oblitum under Article 23b until 1998, even if it remains unused during that time (see Paragraph 4). Fowler rejected Garman’s name Potamotrygon for the generic taxon and used the older name Paratrygon Dumeril, 1865. Since the type- species of Paratrygon by monotypy is Raja ajereba Walbaum and since this species is unidentifiable, Garman was probably right in regarding Paratrygon Dumeril as a nomen dubium and refusing to use it. Fowler also created the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. 354 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature family group name PARATRYGONIDAE which he used instead of Garman’s POTAMOTRYGONIDAE. ‘This also is a nomen dubium and should not be used at present*. 7. The present author in 1964 in a revision of the POTAMOTRYGONIDAE adopted the name Elipesurus for the doubtful E. Spinicauda but rejected Fowler’s PARATRYGONIDAE and PARATRYGONINAE Gill cited by Fowler, and used Garman’s name POTAMOTRYGONIDAE and his genus Potamotrygon with type-species Trygon hystrix Miller & Henle, 1841. He included 17 species in the genus Potamotrygon. Having carefully studied Schomburgk’s figure and compared it with some 5,000 specimens, he has now come to the conclusion that Schomburgk had Trygon brachyurus Giinther 1870 before him when figuring Elipesurus Spinicauda. Elipesurus thus becomes a senior synonym of Potamotrygon Garman and by the law of priority should replace it. 8. In order to maintain uniformity and to avoid confusion, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) the generic name Elipesurus Schomburgk, 1843; (b) the specific name spinicauda Schomburgk, 1843, as published in the binomen Elipesurus spinicauda; (2) place the generic name Potamotrygon Garman, 1878 (gender : neuter), type-species, by designation by Fowler, 1948, Trygon hystrix Miiller & Henle, 1841, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name /Aystrix Miiller & Henle, 1841, as published in the binomen Trygon hystrix (type-species of Potamotrygon Garman, 1878) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Elipesurus Schomburgk, 1843 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above); (b) Ellipesurus Giinther, 1870 (an unjustified emendation of Elipesurus Schomburgk, 1843); (5) place the specific name spinicauda Schomburgk, 1843, as published in the binomen Elipesurus spinicauda (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (6) place the family name POTAMOTRYGONIDAE Garman, 1878 (type-genus Potamotrygon Garman, 1878) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. *It is unwise to suppress nomina dubia under the plenary powers of the International Commission since such names do not threaten any current name. If and when they are identified then it is time enough for the zoologist who identifies the species to apply for its suppression if it threatens some well used name. See Bull. zool. Nomenclature ae . oa . E. China. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 355 REFERENCES Castex, M. N. 1964. Revista del Mus. Prov. Ciencias Naturales “F. Ameghino”, Santa Fe, Argentina. Numero extraordinario: 9-49 Fow er, H. W. 1948. Os. peixes de Agua doce do Brasil, 1: 5 GaRMAN, S. W. 1878. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 19 : 210 —— 1913. Mem. Mus. Harvard Ci ollege, 36 : 424 GUnTHER, A. 1870. Cat. fishes in Brit. Mus., 8 : 472 LAPORTE DE CASTELNAU, F. L. DE. 1855, Exped. Amér Sud. Poiss., 3 : 101 MU ter, J., and HENLE, J. 1841. Syst. Beschr. Plagiost.: 167, 197 RIBEIRO, A. DE MIRANDA. 1907. Arch. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, 14 : 183 ScHOMBURGK, R. H. 1843. Jn Jardine’s Naturalist’s Library (vol. 38), Nat. Hist. Fishes of Guiana (2) : 184, fig. 23 WALBAUM, J. J. 1792. Artedi Pisc., 3 : 538 356 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SOLENIUS LEPELETIER & BRULLE, 1834 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS.* Z.N.(S.) 1827 By H. K. Court and A. S. Menke (University of California, Davis, California, U.S.A.) The generic name Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834, has been regarded as a subgenus of the crabronine genus Lestica for about 30 years. However, unless the Commission suppresses the first valid designation of type-species (that of Westwood, 1839), Solenius must be synonymized with the genus Mellinus Fabricius, 1790. 2. Lepeletier & Brullé (1834) described the genus Solenius, but did not designate a type-species. Twelve species were included, among them Solenius interruptus Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834 (now placed in the genus Lestica Billberg, 1820) and S. vagus (Linnaeus, 1758). Linnaeus’ vagus was misidentified as a crabronid by all workers until 1935 when Richards’ examination of the holotype proved that it really was a species of the nyssonine genus Mellinus. The taxon that has masqueraded under the name “ vagus”’ for so many years is now recognized as a species of the crabronine genus Ectemnius (that is, E. continuus Fabricius, 1804) (see Richards, 1935). In the 1800’s and early 1900’s the treatment of the crabronines was very conservative, with nearly all species being placed in Crabro. Ectemnius was considered a synonym of Solenius, the latter recognized as a subgenus of Crabro. This interpretation was followed by most Europeans until Pate (1937) published his catalog of genera. 3. Westwood (1839) cited Sphex vaga Linnaeus as an example of Solenius. This was considered as a designation of type-species by workers of the 1800's and early 1900’s. By Direction 32 (1956), Westwood’s paper was placed on the Official List of Works. This Direction also stated that “ the species specified against the names of the genera there enumerated are to be treated as having been selected to be the type-species of those genera ”’. 4. If Westwood’s designation is accepted then Solenius is isogenotypic with Mellinus Fabricius, 1790, and becomes a junior synonym of the latter (see Richards, 1935). This would leave the subgenus of Lestica currently called “© Solenius ’’ without a name. 5. A second type designation for Solenius was made by Ashmead (1899). He selected Solenius interruptus Lepeletier & Brullé as type-species of Solenius. This is the designation which Pate (1937) accepted in his catalog of the sphecid genera and their type-species. Pate rejected Westwood’s type designation on the grounds that Westwood had specifically stated that he was only listing an example of each genus. Ashmead’s designation transferred Solenius to the genus Lestica where it is now recognized as a subgenus. The next available name for the genus containing continuus Fabricius was Ectemnius Dahlbom, 1845. Subsequent to Ashmead’s designation American authors tended to * A product of research supported by National Science Foundation grant # GB-5839 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 357 accept it while most Europeans continued to use Solenius in the sense of Westwood. Since Pate’s work, however, nearly everyone has used Solenius in the sense of Ashmead and a large literature has built up around Ectemnius and Lestica, subgenus Solenius. 6. Benson, Ferriére, and Richards (1947) who disagreed with or ignored Pate (1937), tried to have Westwood’s designation suppressed on the valid grounds that Westwood had misidentified vagus (as had his contemporaries). Benson et al., proposed that Crabro continuus Fabricius be designated as the type of Solenius. Such action would have retained Solenius for those wasps with which it had been associated up to 1937, (see Pate, 1937), but the Com- mission (1950) postponed consideration of the petition pending further information. 7. In spite of Pate’s arguments for accepting Ashmead’s type designation, Westwood’s still has priority according to the Code. Therefore in order to maintain current worldwide popular usage of Solenius, Westwood’s type designation must be suppressed. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species made prior to the Ruling now requested for the genus Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834, and having done so to designate Solenius interruptus Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834, to be the type-species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name So/enius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Solenius interruptus Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name interruptus Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834, as published in the binomen Solenius interruptus (type-species of Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ASHMEAD, W. H. 1899. Classification of the Entomophilus Wasps of the super- family Sphegoidea. Canadian Entomol. 31 : 145-155, 161-174, 212-225, 238-251, 291-300, 322-330, 345-357 BENSON, R. B., FERRIERE, C., and RICHARDS, O. W. 1947. Proposed suspension of ae Regles for Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834. Bull zool. Nomencl. 1 (9) : 21 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 1950. Conclusions of the Thirteenth Meeting held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July, 1948 at 1730 hours. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 (13-15) : 354-424 —— 1956. Direction 32. Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(C) : 309-328 LEPELETIER DE SAINT FARGEAU, A., and BRULLE, A. 1834. Monographie du genre ere oe Famille des Hyménoptéres Fouisseurs. Amn. Soc. ent. France 3: — Pate, V.S.L. 1937. The generic names of the Sphecoid wasps and their type species. Mem. Amer. Entomol. Soc., No. 9, 103 pp. 358 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Ricwarps, O. W. 1935. Notes on the Nomenclature of the Aculeate Hymenoptera, with special reference to the British Genera and Species. Trans. ent. Soc. London 83 : 143-176 Westwoop, J. O. 1839. Synopsis of the Genera of British Insects, pp. 1-158 in : An Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects, vol. 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 359 LIPHISTIUS SCHI@DTE, 1849 (ARANEAE): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1828 By Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 02138, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to validate the emendation to Liphistius of the generic name Lipistius Schiedte, 1849, and to place the emended name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the family name LIPHISTIIDAE Thorell, 1869, on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology. 2. The name Lipistius Schiodte, 1849 (Nat. Tidskr. (2) 2 : 621) with the type-species L. desultor by monotypy was first emended by Thorell in 1869, On European Spiders : 13, to Liphistius. Since that time, 1869, the name has been spelled consistently Liphistius in the zoological literature, the only excep- tion being the catalogs of generic names of Marschall, 1873, Scudder, 1882, and Neave, 1939 (see Bonnett, 1957, Bibliographia Araneorum 2 : 2548-2549: .... “dés 1869, Thorell p. 13 en donnant l’étymologie de ce terme, I’a corrigé en Liphistius; tous les auteurs l’ont ainsi employé par la suite ”). 3. The catalog of C. F. Roewer, 1942, Katalog der Araneae 1 : 145, like previous catalogs spelled the genus Lipistius. Now after almost 100 years, one widely used European textbook and at least one taxonomic publication have followed the spelling of Roewer’s Katalog. 4. The name Liphistius is the basis for the name of the family LIPHISTIIDAE [LIPHISTOIDAE, Thorell, 1869, On European Spiders : 43] and the basis of the name of one of the three suborders of spiders Liphistiomorphae Petrunkevitch, 1923, Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 29 : 167 [=Mesothelae Pocock, 1892, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 10 : 314], a name still used by some authors. The name Liphistius and that of the higher taxa based on it is cited in many textbooks and other publications as an example of a primitive spider whose abdomen is segmented. 5. The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to validate the emendation to Liphistius of the generic name Lipistius Schiodte, 1849; (2) to place the generic name Liphistius Schiodte, 1849 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Lipistius [sic] desultor Schiodte, 1849, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name desultor Schiodte, 1849, as published in the binomen Lipistius desultor (type-species of Liphistius Schiodte, 1849) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the family name LIpHIsTIIDAE Thorell, 1869 (type-genus Liphistius Schiadte, 1849) on the Official List of F amily-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the generic name Lipistius Schiodte, 1849 (Ruled under the plenary powers in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling for Liphistius) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6, January 1968, 360 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BOLLIA JONES AND HOLL, 1886 (OSTRACODA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1831 By Albert L. Guber (The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa., U.S.A.) I. Introduction. Jones and Holl (1886) erected the new genus Bollia and included in it two new species, B. bicollina and B. uniflexa. They based the species B. bicollina on three figured specimens as well as other unfigured material. Additional specimens of this species have been found in abundance by the author as well as by other workers. B. uniflexa was based on a single figured specimen. No other specimens of this species were found by Jones and Holl or by any subsequent workers. Jones and Holl did not select a type-species for the genus Bollia. Miller (1892) subsequently designated Bollia uniflexa as the type-species for Bollia. II. Origin and nature of the problem. 1n 1963 the author visited the British Museum (Natural History) and re-examined the figured specimens of B. bicollina and B. uniflexa. It was immediately apparent that B. uniflexa is not a drepanellacean ostracode, as it is presently classified, but that it is a member of the Beyrichiacea, a superfamily characterized by a unique type of shell dimor- phism. It was also noted that of the 69 different species that have been assigned to Bollia, most of them favourably agree with the figured specimens of B. bicollina, but none agree with the type-species, B. uniflexa. Bollia is large in number of species contained in the genus. It is rather common in the appropriate temporal interval (Early and Middle Palaeozoic), and a concept of the genus is thoroughly ingrained in the paleontological litera- ture. Unfortunately, the past and present concept of the genus is not based on the type-species, B. uniflexa, but it is based on the species B. bicollina. As B. uniflexa is now known to be a beyrichiacean ostracode it must be transferred out of the superfamily Drepanellacea. The common concept of the genus, how- ever, is conveyed by B. bicollina, which, with all the other present species of Bollia, will remain in the superfamily Drepanellacea. The possible solutions to this problem, therefore, would be to transfer Bollia to the Beyrichiacea with B. uniflexa as the type-species or to suppress B. uniflexa as the type-species, designate B. bicollina as the type-species, and retain Bollia in the Drepanellacea. III. Consequences of transferring Bollia to the Beyrichiacea while retaining B. uniflexa as the type-species. If B. uniflexa is not suppressed as the type- species for Bollia, then Bollia would have to be removed from the superfamily Drepanellacea and transferred to the superfamily Beyrichiacea. The conse- quences of such a transfer would be as follows: (1) Such a transfer would affect drepanellacean systematics in the following manner: The present classification (Scott, 1961) of drepanellacean ostracodes is as follows: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 6. January 1968. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 361 Superfamily Drepanellacea Ulrich & Bassler, 1923 Family Drepanellidae Ulrich & Bassler, 1923 Family Aechminellidae Sohn, 1961 Family Aechminidae Bouéek, 1936 Family Bolliidae Bouéek, 1936 Family Kirkbyellidae Sohn, 1961 Family Richinidae Scott, 1961 The transfer of Bollia to the Beyrichiacea would necessitate that the subfamily Ulrichiinae Schmidt, 1941 be translated to family status to replace the family name Bolliidae and that all nominal species of Bollia, except B. uniflexa, be assigned to a new genus. (2) Such a transfer would affect beyrichiacean systematics in the following manner: The present classification (Martinsson, 1963) of beyrichiacean ostra- codes is as follows: Superfamily Beyrichiacea Matthew, 1886 Family Craspedobolbinidae Martinsson, 1962 Subfamily Craspedobolbininae Martinsson, 1962 Subfamily Treposellinae Henningsmoen, 1954 Subfamily Amphitoxotidinae Martinsson, 1962 Family Beyrichiidae Matthew, 1886 Subfamily Beyrichiinae Matthew, 1886 Subfamily Zygobolbininae Ulrich & Bassler, 1923 Subfamily Kloedeniinae Ulrich & Bassler, 1923 Subfamily Hexophthalmoidinae Martinsson, 1962 Great taxonomic importance is placed on the structure of the female brood pouch in classifying beyrichiacean ostracodes. The type and only known specimen of B. uniflexa is a male of the species and con- siderable uncertainty exists as to where amongst the forementioned beyrichiacean subfamilies it should be placed. The specimen of B. uniflexa possesses some of the characters of the amphitoxotidines and of the treposellines, as well as characters unique to this species. The transfer of Bollia, therefore, to the Beyrichiacea could result in one of the following systems: (a) Transfer of Bollia to the subfamily Treposellinae. In which case, in accordance with the Law of Priority, the Treposellinae Henningsmoen, 1954 would become a junior synonym of the Bolliinae Bouéek, 1936 and the Craspedobolbinidae Martin- sson, 1962 would become a junior synonym of the Bolliidae Boucek, 1936. (b) Transfer of Bollia to the subfamily Amphitoxotidinae. In which case, in accordance with the Law of Priority, the Amphitoxo- tidinae Martinsson, 1962 would become a junior synonym of the Bolliinae Bouéek, 1936 and the Craspedobolbinidae Martinsson, 1962 would become a junior synonym of the Bolliidae Bouéek, 1936. 362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) Transfer of Bollia to a new subfamily in the family Craspedo- bolbinidae. In which case, in accordance with the Law of Priority, the Craspedobolbinidae Martinsson, 1962 would become a junior synonym of the Bolliidae Bouéek, 1936 and this family would accommodate the new subfamily Bolliinae Bouéek, 1936. (d) Transfer of Bollia to a new family within the Beyrichiacea. In which case the new beyrichiacean family Bolliidae Bouéek, 1936 would, because of the nature of the type-specimen of the type-species, remain in a monotypic family. In order to promote a stable nomenclature and in order not to disrupt the past and present concept of the genus Bollia, none of the above transfers are deemed desirable. Not only will the systematics of the Drepanellacea be disrupted, but the systematics of the Beyrichiacea can never be stabilized until a female specimen of B. uniflexa is found. No such specimen exists in the original collections of Jones and Holl. The author has extensively sampled the same temporal interval and has not recovered a single specimen of B. uniflexa among the thousands of ostracodes found. Both Dr. Anders Martinsson of Uppsala, Sweden and Dr. Eric Robinson of London, England have likewise sampled the critical interval and neither has found a specimen of B. uniflexa. IV. Consequences of suppressing Bollia uniflexa as type-species for Bollia and designating Bollia bicollina as type-species for Bollia. In view of the undesirable aspects of transferring Bollia from the Drepanellacea to the Beyrichiacea, the consequences of suppressing B. uniflexa as type-species and designating B. bicollina as type-species should be considered. These consequences are as follows: (1) A stable nomenclature will ensue because no changes in the systematics of the Drepanellacea will be necessary. B. uniflexa can tentatively be assigned to an existing or new beyrichiacean genus. This genus can likewise be provisionally assigned to an existing subfamily pending discovery of a female specimen. (2) The preservation of the past and present concept of the genus Bollia will result because the common concept of Bollia is best conveyed in the species B. bicollina. Although type localities were not designated for either B. uniflexa or B. bicollina, specimens conspecific with B. bicollina can easily be collected for study. V. Recommendations. The following recommendations are therefore made, that the International Commission should: (1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Bollia Jones and Holl, 1886, and having done so, designate Bollia bicollina Jones and Holl, 1886, to be the type-species for that genus; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 363 (2) place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Bollia Jones and Holl, 1886, (gender : feminine) type- species by designation under the plenary powers in 1. above, Bollia bicollina Jones and Holl, 1886; (3) place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: bicollina Jones and Holl, 1886, as published in the binomen Bollia bicollina (type-species of Bollia Jones and Holl, 1886); (4) place the family-name BOLLIDAE Bouéek, 1938 (type-genus Bollia Jones and Holl, 1886) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED Jones, T. R., and Hott, H. B. 1886. Notes on Palaeozoic Bivalved Entomostraca. No. XX. On the Genus Beyrichia and some new Species. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (5) 17 : 337-363 Mitter, S. A. 1892. North American Geology and Paleontology. C incinnati, Ohio, Appendix 1, Crustacea: 704-718 MARTINSSON, ANDERS. 1962. Ostracodes of the family Beyrichiidae from the Silurian of Gotland. Bull. geol. Inst. Univ. Uppsala, 61 : 1-369 Scott, HAROLD W. 1961. Classification of Ostracoda, Q74-Q92. In Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, R. C. Moore, Ed., Part Q, Lawrence, Kansas 364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INDEX TO AUTHORS Page Acer Di Ve fee Se = 96 Amadon, Dean sas te POO Amaral, Afranio do ... Bo 2 Aubenton, F. d’ os a. VE20I Baird, Donald o et 262 BalliGa baa Be 5% 76 Barr, Thomas C., Jr. ach 75 Basilewsky, P. 953 wis 75 Belle Resa. $s Ma 716 Benson, Robert B. ... ach 95 Berry, Frederick H. ... cog) IER) Boylan, Patrick J. ... e. 55 Brunton, C. H. C. 294, 297 Bulman, O. M. B. ... ee 49 Butler, Percy M._... =» 190 Castex, Mariano N. ... Se aes es Cernohorsky, Walter O. ... 53 Chenes Ba Ya ce. wes ste 77 Cheong, W. H. Be me 77 China, W. E. ... Sr = 77 Chitwood, M.B. _... we 57 Clancey, P. A. =r ae 34 Clark, Ailsa M. 41, 98, 126 Clark, David L. ine eo ate, Cocks, L. R. M. 294, 297 Collette, Bruce B. 196, 252 Common, I. F. B. ... ada 78 Consiglio, Carlo 7 sscy 246 Corliss, John O. aaa als Court, H. K. ... sae - 22 356 Cowan, C. F.... ao ae 186 Crowson, R. A. mitt pee ANT Daget, J. cae a se Darlington, P. J., Jr... 75, 192 Dementiev, G. P. Disney, H. J. deS. Dougherty, Ellsworth C. Eichhorn, O. ... Erben, H. K.... Fooden, Jack... an Forshaw, Joseph M.... Froeschner, R. C. Gagné, Raymond J.... Galbraith, I. C. J. Gans, Carl Gladkov, N. A. Glass, Bryan P. Groves, Colin P. Guber, Albert L. Hastings, Anna B. Hemmer, Helmut Herring, J. L.... Bae Hershkovitz, Philip ... Herting, Benno Hooijer, D. A. “ae Hussey, Roland F. Inger, Robert F. Ivanov, A. I. ... Jeekel, C. A. W. Keen, Myra ... Kerzhner, I. M. Kevan, D. Keith McE. Key, K. H. L. Klapper, Gilbert Kraus, Otto ... Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page Land, J. van der Ses oh 23: Lane, N. Gary cere Pee Lemche, Henning... 268, 275 Levi, Herbert W._... Eo) Lindroth, Carl H. ... ne 75 Lindstrém, Maurits ... ja 2o9. Leoblich, Alfred R., Jr. ee SOL Long, Charles A. ... coe 260 Lynch, John D. ie ee LS McKenna, Malcolm C. ee 90 Mayr, Ernst ... ... 66, 192, 275 Mees Ge Ba aos ae 67, 263 Menke, A. S.... iat ae 258 Muldrew, J., et al. ... ea 322 Miiller, Klaus J. oP eit 2 DAD. Myers, Ralph... on ae 36 Négre, J. as . ads 12 Nitecki, Matthew HL we LD) Parkes, Kenneth C. ... ree 203) Patterson, Bryan Ame .. 190 Paul, C. R. C. wes fe 3304 Péricart, J... aa wae BIOS) Peters, James A. Ste ae 138 Portenko, L. A. ae ae 60 Pschorn-Walcher, H. ne 322 Rao, Y. Ramchandra aloo) Riley, N. D. ... Pe 267, 290 Robins, C. Richard ... nae 80 Rogen, Ulrick ... re .. 244 Romer, Alfred S.... zy 190 Rowe, F. W. E. am 98, 126 Ryland, J. S. ... ies 24, 344 365 Page Sabrosky, Curtis W. 67, 68, 73, 136, 141, 203, 207, 310, 328, 332 Salomonsen, F. Sartenaer, P. ... Scanlon, John E. Selman, B. J.... Sestini, N. Fantini Smith, Hobart M. Smith, R. F. ... Someren, V. G. L. van Stubblefield, J. Szalay, Frederick S. ... Tappan, Helen Thomas, H. Dighton Tortonese, Enrico Uvarov, Boris Valen, Leigh Van Vaurie, Charles Vecht, J. van der Wake, David B. Wermuth, H.... Whalley, P. E. S. White, E. I. ES Whittington, H. B. ... Wiebes, J. T.... Willemse, Fer... Williams, Ernest E. ... Wilson, Edward C. ... Wolff, Torben Wong, H. R. ... Wood, Stephen L. Wygodzinsky, Pedro... Ziegler, Willi .. Zimmerman, Elwood C Zweifel, Richard G. ... 270 96 208 116 248 .. 8, 269 116 255 322 190 301 316 2; 3 132 93, 190 60 27 239 267, 308 328 366 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Opinion Page 800 (Leptocorixa Berthold, 1827) a aie ies at Pre 10 801 (Moehring’s 1758 work) _ ... sad es oer ae a 13 802 (Laemophloeus immundus Reitter, 1874) fe aoe fas see 14 803 (Anthus roseatus Blyth, 1847) ee so ss sa ae 16 804 (Coluber doliatus Linnaeus, 1766) ... She eee wae i 18 805 (Rhabdosphaera Haeckel, 1894)... fe Sos ae ar 20 806 (Gymnetis MacLeay, 1819) ... Afi ane Bef ee a 22 807 (Stringocephalus Defrance, 1825) ... le ine cee cae 81 808 (Cryptorhynchus Mliger, 1807) oi as: ae sae se 83 809 (Thunnus South, 1845) af o. me at ae asa 85 810 (Turritella kanieriensis Harris, 1897) see at ke aA 87 811 (Runcina Forbes, 1851) es ies soe a sh Ae 89 812 (Cadlina Bergh, 1878) rs a re use x33 aoc 91 813 (Faviphyllum rugosum Hall, 1852) ... on nae ie nan, aS 814 (Ornipholidotos Bethune Baker, 1914)... oa — et, AS 815 (Synaptiphilus Canu & Cuénot, 1892)... He we sox WAT 816 (Eretmia Gosse, 1886) in ase Bee Re ss ce) TAD 817 (Cancer setiferus Linnaeus, 1767) ... soe a BS Bee tS) 818 (Zorilla Geoffroy, 1826)... Fes ay Ae ae elas 819 (Ypthima Hibner, 1818)... oe oe =e =~ Res) 820 (Napaea Hiibner, [1819]) ... Ate “oo aw bs ect) p22 821 (laspis Kaye, 1904) ... oe ae an wee ee cee 2S 822 (Pithecops Horsfield, [1828]) ae a ae a Pa WANG 823 (Arisbe Hiibner, [1819]) ... si oe ss ant eed TS 824 (Phrissura Butler, 1870) Bis a a oe ae eet, 220 825 (Adopaeoides Godman, [1900]) ... pee fens ifs eee 826 (Artines Godman, [1901]) ... i ae Ser di snien RDA 827 (Gegenes Hiibner, [1819]) ... - one a ee # ~226 828 (Halpe Moore, 1878) ee fas Ss ri oes win 6 DDB 829 (Papias Godman, [1900]) ... sit sot ae ee ae PAKS 830 (Phanes Godman, [1901]) ... nae wae ae eae fen VAD) 831 (Telicota Moore, [1881]) ... fg Pe - A, on ey) 832 (Zenis Godman, [1900]) _... rs hae es re te 284 833 (Limacia Miiller, 1781) “a "eb Si oa oo Sane 280) 834 (Tipula nubeculosa Meigen, 1804) ... sie see ae Bose st) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 367 Opinion Page 835 (Melanoplus Stal, 1873) Se a se8 ue ws ae 329 836 (Leuctra Stephens, 1835)... r- des a5 oF e331 837 (Nupedia Karl, 1930) ae ay. rH Bee 333, 838 (Heterotrypa Nicholson and Peronopora Nicholson) ae riay 33D 839 (Anthanassa Scudder, 1875)... oe Bae a as aes oT, 840 (Amblema Rafinesque, 1820) ie Ly Le ae eine 1939 841 (Four Linnaean Gastropod species) aoe a 26 are 4 368 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INDEX TO KEY NAMES Page abietis, Bostrichus, Ratzeburg, 1839 eas ae eed ee ate bey 721 Acanthochila Morch, 1867... ae wee wwe sie spe aan nbs 91 achaemenes, Charaxes, Felder, 1866 was wat 328 ee ne vee» 2S Actinopyga Bronn, 1860 wee = ae ae eee ues ses 3 HOT aculeata, Asterias, Linnaeus, 1767 ... ee nae 2 ae a ee 45 acus, Sphyraena, Lacépéde, 1803... a ae rer oi scene 1978201 acuta, Cimex, Thunberg, 1783 ate a saa wit sia eae mee 10 Adopaeoides Godman, [1900] ne 239 my ah oS Bis sox | ED aethiops, Holothuria, Brandt, 1835 ... ae fon as ea: ash {ok ane Oe agglutinata, Holothuria, Lesueur, 1824 ess on ane Kes Be we OF Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799 ... x ee aa eas aaa ae pert mar Als! aglaja, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758 oe eee ae ae Se sin, 186 Alastor Lepeletier, 1841 ae vai ae ioe oe “a ae see 28 Alastoroides Saussure, 1856 ... ie is aed =e ae Pet sak 28 albida, Cladodactyla, Brandt, 1835 ... aS ie: as a sas sce lO2 albiguttata, Bohadschia, Jaeger, 1833 Bee ae of ah we noe «¢ OF Alcopos Brandt, 1835 at ak ae was ie cay dat ee 98 aletes, Thracides, Geyer, [1832] a 3 y a0 ees ws Sez cae! ARO Amblema Rafinesque, 1819; 1920 ... #3 See ee ae ee toc 389 AMBLOCTONIDAE Cope, 1877 ... oF ee ie 5 aes soe “ee 93 Ambloctonus Cope, 1875 = ae os aes Hee a gee Pre 94 Amphiptyches Wagener, 1852 a ses wes ie Bae a io 2S ananas, Trepang, Jaeger, 1833 xe bei ses aah ae int ieee 99 Ananus Sluiter, 1881 ... soe =. “a a A see ae 101, 268 Ancistroceroides Saussure, 1855 ies ae arte as wee sea ait 27 Ancistrodon Beauvois, 1799 ... ee on =e ae a Aan cect 205) angouya, Mus, Fischer, 1814 di ae, ede uae = fe Joan Antalastor Saussure, 1856... tes ee ba a: e =cE Be 28 Antepipona Saussure, 1855... ae es a = ee bee ae 28 Anthanassa Scudder, 1875... Qs = a ae a aes wee So Antodynerus Saussure, 1855 ... “ee eae a sae a ase wae 28 aquilini, Hesperia, Plotz, 1883 wes sy as Wed is mk 2s C224 arenicola, Holothuria, Semper, 1868 nats ees <¥ wat Woe oe 99 argalus, Belona, Lesueur, 1821 Be A aa ase on age 197, 201 Arisbe Hiibner, [1819] sis ie ae es ce ad aes eo Le Artines Godman, [1901] a ae eae ee ae a ais se OE asparagi, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 Sas oe ass Roe mer we SG Aspidochir Brandt, 1835 ony = a9 oe 7 ae 103, 269 assectator, Acridium, Fischer yon Walbem, "1833 ae os ae wx gal30 atra, Holothuria, Jaeger, 1833 te a Sas a oe oes én, LOL auritus, Mus, Fischer, 1814 ... fe i was ake ea Ne ee 4 Balantidium Claparéde & Lachmann, 1858 ed a an re aus ee l63) bavarica, Cystidea, Barrande, 1868 ... eas ae ies oe oes Ze £1304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 369 Page bicollina, Bollia, Jones & Holl, 1886 aes bk aa nie se ot 60 Bicornes Schuchert & LeVene, 1929 sce See one 3 sa a 96 binodulus, Bostrichus, Ratzeburg, 1839 AP as a oe as Pe allPA| Biradiolites d’ Orbigny, 1850... ies wae awe a ie we 36, 209 Bohadschia Jaeger, 1833 aes ‘ee ta sas a. ee wai 101, 268 Bollia Jones & Holl, 1886... ae oy i See = aor fi :2ah360 BOLLIIDAE Boucek, 1938 aoe ss Ba a sae as as Snen361 brandtii, Holothuria, Selenka, 1867 . hee ous x8 ar Se ies 99 BRONTEIDES Hawle & Corda, 1847 ... aCe Po oak ay sie aasey230 Brookes, 1828 work . re ois aes oo 55 brunnea, Holothuria, Chavis & Eeecatardt 1821 oc ae de evry 104 Bugula Oken, 1815... awe S82 FC a at eee er 24 burtini, Terebratula, Defrance, 1824 aes AP Re 45s aes aes 81 Cadlina Bergh, 1878 . a ee ee Ae re os 91 canaliculatus, Biradiolites, d’ Orica. 1850 ts oe ae ies wee 36 capensis, Strix, Daudin; Smith wt afte “a sei a ... 34, 203, 263 caspia, Sterna, Pallas, 1770 ... ae rs Sas Se wes ... 60, 204, 270 cavolini, Holthuria, Delle Chiaje, 1823 ez oe 20 res wae .. 104 Cellaria Ellis & Solander, 1786 we Kee ae. ae as YH S34: chelata, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758 ... oe ace fa Ler Ae wae 25 chiametla, Coluber, Shaw, 1802 wes wee Fa ed tee ned 138, 269 chimaerae, Crobylophorus, Kroyer, 1852 ... i see ree vee $a 123 Chiridota Eschscholtz, 1829 . bce 103 chlorodippe, Argynnis, Villiers & Guenée, 1835; Hiemiche Sehastien 1851 aee90) chloronotos, Stichopus, Brandt, 1835 Sa St ate 28: “we e000 ciliata, Asterias, Miller, 1776 ae Nes awe a fad aor aE 44 ciliaris, Asterias, Linnaeus, 1767... ies = ee, “2 SY oe 44 citrina, Voluta, Gmelin, 1791 bee ie ao des ee 54 claviger, Rhabdosphaera, Murray & Bincknent 1398 woe cc =ne mee 20 clavigera, Doris, Miiller, 1776 se oa ee ae te see v2 E286 CLUPISUDIDAE Jordan, 1923 ... ain dex ee e soe ot eater293 Clupisudis Swainson, 1839 ... nae ee wee Bei Ar ee eae 292 coccineus, Coluber, Blumenbach, 1788 ** dae wes ete aor ae 18 COCCOLITHIDAE Poche, 1913 ... “ee oes oe — Se hes oa 20 Coccolithus Schwarz, 1894 ... dee eee Boe ms at ies iets 20 Colaceutes Hartmann, 1856 ... ais is’ aes nee ws ast eel AT Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947... ae ae oes ge de acm anl41 colloradiatus, Colochirus, Haacke, 1880... a ae ads aaa vee al05 colon, Papilio, Fabricius, 1775 a eee see a A wt ey | 202 Colpidium Stein, 1860 ae js oe 2 es we we Fn l63 Colpoda Miiller, 1773 =a es ie 333 aes wae corel 62 colpoda, Paramaecium, Losana, 1829 ase aoe ats an “ae eee LOS. communis, Cucumaria, Forbes, 1841 soe eo a ee we note lL O2 conoidea, Bulla, Linnaeus, 1767 Oe ne mae = ae wa Jc o4l 370 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Page corax, Pithecops, Fruhstorfer, [1919] Ae ake its a & seealG Cornufer Tschudi, 1838 a 2 ate a9 A ue a2) cornupastoris, Hippurites, Des Manhne 1826 ea wet i 5 oa 36 coronata, Pelta, Quatrefages, 1844 ... a5 eae ted Aa a: Fe 89 costatum, Scutellum, Pusch, 1833... Aab ane #r 52 Ee yan E 2) Cotinis Burmeister, 1842... Se as ad te ts La ee 22 Crioceris Miller, 1764 v8 ta nae was ee We ue 116, 207 Crobylophorus Kroyer, 1852 fs, 7 weg a m ce ee 7} crocodila, Belona, Peron & LeSueur, 1821. Ae ie A +e 192, 201 Cryphalus Erichson, 1836... eee G08 = eu Ete vd Foxe li CRYPTORHYNCHINAE Schoenherr, 1825 a8 Ses Be a i cae 83 Cryptorhynchus Mliger, 1807 cee bag Ac = eee ste cS: 83 cucullus, Kolpoda, Miiller, 1773 oF rad Pe x at in’ + eelie2) cyanella, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 Ss wee aes noe Pen ere we biby/ Cyathocrinites Miller, 1821 ... ar ae nae ae ae = cee eT Cyatholithus Huxley, 1868 ... see Pas wee nae ae aor oc 20 Cynocephalus Boddaért, 1768 Ba 248 wan Sc ae red 5 wn LOO) Cystidea Barrande, 1868 ae = sor a4 _ ads bss peepee) decipiens, Chaetetes, Rominger, 1866 aa iva at 365 Be eee) desultor, Lipistius, Schigdte, 1849 ... re = 22 als it ee es) Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841... pee ec oe 7h uae anv 9, 202,279 Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 ae ore 32 ots ir. bean Dy 2025279 difficilis, Holothuria, Semper, 1868 ... a ac mag bas aud aot 27 Diploperideris Brandt, 1835 ... Fea is ace Ls oa ed 101, 268 discolor, Chiridota, Eschscholtz, 1829 aa ie 2 eee ase Pee Ki) dissimilis, Holothuria, Fleming, 1828 i a8 ae ae ea ‘or gill OS; doliatus, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1766... ee ive aa aoe <3 Me 18 douglasii, Lepus, Gray, 1837 aoe oe are sas Mee dzone 206 drummondii, Holothuria, Thompson, 1840 .. aa ek ae a 106, 269 Duasmodactyla Ayres, 1856 ... wa Soi see ae at we 103, 269 dubius, Polygnathus, Hinde, 1879... aa aS aaa eae Oe 239, 242 Durania Douvillé, 1908 ae o Me. oe och Se ahs 36, 209 echinites, Muelleria, Jaeger, 1833... sles ait en Rat ang aes 101 Echinochila Morch, 1869 ... ee wee wes wt ats tie es 91 Elipesurus Schomburgk, 1843 ae ee aes ae ee ae sea 53' Enchelis Miller, 1773 ee ae ees td; a +e ods swe AGL Enchelys Miiller, 1773 eee dE ae Bek ahi re uss ee eli6l entozoon, Bursaria, Ehrenberg, 1838 oe “ae nee wk ee Ee l63' Eoparafusulina Coogan, 1960 ‘ide aa sai = ah xe hen 234 Epirhexis Cope, 1866 oe os a ais 345 & Ks ss: episcopalis, Mitra, Linnaeus, 1758 . es ee st 3 if at a3 9 Epsilon Saussure, 1855 ie ee Bae bee Bt we ate av 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 371 Page erectus, Hippocampus, Perry, 1810 ... ae us bey os ake 80, 208 Eretmia Gosse, 1886 a aos ue ee aon «. 149 errabundus, Anopheles, Grelicuprebel, 1925 ae ass $o5 as 77, 208 errata, Lepralia, Waters, 1878 — ie eds ede es ate a 1516 Eubiradiolites Coogan, 1966... fs Ss oa ae ts se fs 37 eucharila, Cremna, Bates, 1867 se aes ak ot oo ie ee S202 Euodynerus Dalla Torre, 1904 ais ate wee ome as sii aes 29 expansus, Plethodus, Dixon, 1850 ... aes ae be noe ae G50 253 farcimen, Enchelis, Miller, 1773... = see oe st Be ly farciminoides, Cellaria, Ellis & Solander, 1786 : oe hes Sen -cae B45 fasciata, Holothuria, Lesueur, 1824 sé = we ee xis Sec nl OF Faviphyllum Hall, 1852 ode ies Sas te das as zeae 43 femurrubrum, Acrydium, de Geer, 1773 os stale Rae es ode moe eee) fissa, Asterias, Pennant, 1777 Aen see * ope oH = ee 45 fistulosa, Eschara, Linnaeus, 1758 ... sae hes =, a see Jee S44: flabelliforme, Gorgonia, Eichwald, 1840... x: — Sie ete Pa 49 fluviatilis, Tintinnus, Stein, 1863 aa Sa Suz nie ae ae we + 302 fragilis, Asterias, Abildgaard, 1789 ... Sas oes 5c ass = ae 44 frondosa, Monticulipora, d’Orbigny, 1850 ... nes wat is, tee 298,201 infirma, Anthomyia, Meigen, 1826 ... oes Boe ast Pe a SSS inquilina, Trichoda, Miiller, 1776... nie as dea Aes nae scnel301 integra, Pamphila, Mabille, 1891... 72 RSs os vee sat c278: interruptus, Solenius, Lepeltier & Brullé, 1834 te By ae was ak, 356 japonicus, Papio, Rennie, 1838 ae ise ae aed oe wes Hae A250 jebus, Hesperia, Pl6tz, 1882 ... ies sts ik ase bos ee sca t284: Jocaste, Charaxes, Butler, 1865 eee eee ob wis ia eh 255, 332 kanieriensis, Turritella, Harris, 1897 aes aes Bo en beg wi6 87 kefersteini, Lyrodon, Miinster, 1837 naa a3 Jas BS. ihe coie248 kirbyi, Pentila, Aurivillius, 1895... cre sie iad utd ap vsvye lS Kolpoda Miiller, 1773 a ‘ eat ae me aS age isebeell62 kolpoda, Paramaecium, Losana, 1829 oe ste on ane wae ta wl63' Labidodemas Selenka, 1867 ... nop ra mek ae wes at esate 4 LULZ. lacertosa, Asterias, Pennant, 1777 ... oes ae as zee ae aa 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature -lacunosa, Anomia, Linnaeus, 1758 ... laevis, Doris, Linnaeus, 1767 lagura, Scolopendra, Linnaeus, 1758 Lambornella Keilin, 1921 lanius, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758 ... lapathi, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758 lapidifera, Holothuria, Lesueur, 1824 Lasioptera Meigen, 1818 laucha, Mus, Fischer, 1814 ... leachii, Nematus, Dahlbom, 1835 Lema Fabricius, 1798 leonidas, Papilio, Fabricius, 1793 Leprotintinnus Jorgensen, 1900 Leptocorisa Latreille, 1829 LEPTOCORISINI Stal, 1872 was Leptoglena Grassé & de Boissezon, 1929 wie leucomela, Motacilla, Pallas, 1770 ... Leucopera Gmelin, 1790 Leucophrus Ehrenberg, 1838 Leucophrydium Roux, 1899 ... LEUCOPHRYIDAE Mugard, 1949 Leucophrys Ehrenberg, 1830 leucostoma, Voluta, Gmelin, 1791 Leuctra Stephens, 1835 lilii, Attelabus, Scopoli, 1763 Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 Limacia Miiller, 1781 : a lineolata, Bohadschia, Jaeger, 1833 LIPHISTIDAE Thorell, 1869 Liphistius Schigdte, 1849 littoralis, Holothuria, Risso, 1826 livonica, Terebratula, von Buch, 1834 longicauda, Asterias, Retzius, 1805 ... longipes, Batrachyla, Baird, 1859 lumbricoides, Chiridota, Eschscholtz, 1829 luteus, Synaptiphilus, Canu & Cuénot, 1892 Macrocystella Callaway, 1877 MACROCYSTELLIDAE Bather, 1899 maculata, Holothuria, Chamisso & ferent 1821 mamamillata, Holothuria, Risso, 1826 marginata, Semblis, Panzer, 1799 mariae, Macrocystella, Callaway, 1877 marinus, Esox, Walbaum, 1792 es marisrubri, Esox belone var., Bloch & Schneider, 1801 373 Page 297 91 63 165 22 83 105 310 eset 95, 322 117, 207 218 302 10 10 i 164 60, 204, 270 171 171 165 168 161 54 331 116 116 286 104 359 359 105 96 41 313 107 147 305 305 100 105 246 305 "196, 201 197, 201 374 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature marmorata, Bohadschia, Jaeger, 1833 marnockii, Syrrhophus, Cope, 1878 marshalli, Opopsitta, Iredale, 1946 . mauritiana, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaeadl 1833 maxima, Fistularia, Forskal, 1775 ... maxima, Phryganea, Scopoli, 1763 ... megacephalus, Mus, Fischer, 1814 ... Megalichthys Agassiz, 1835 ... Melanoplus Stal, 1873 mertensii, Aspidochir, Brandt, 1835. Microthele Brandt, 1835 ae mildei, Amphisbaena, Peters, 1878 ... ee miliaris, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833 minuta, Holothuria, Fabricius, 1780 minutus, Colochirus, Ludwig, 1875 ... mitra, Voluta, Linnaeus, 1758 Moehring, 1758 work mollis, Oncinolabes, Brandt, 1835 monacaria, Holothuria, Lesson, 1830 moniliferus, Pachyrhynchus, Germar, 1824 ... monosticha, Holothuria, Haacke, 1880 moorei, Halpe, Watson, 1893 morio, Voluta, Linnaeus, 1767 Miiller (O.F.): editions of 1769 work mutabilis, Gymnetis, Gory & Percheron, [1836] Napaea Hibner, [1819] neillii, Holothuria, Fleming, 1828 neptuni, Receptaculites, Defrance, 1827 neritina, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758 nigra, Asterias, Abildgaard, 1789 nigra, Asterias, Pennant, 1777 nigrellus, Anthocoris, Zetterstedt, 1838 nigricans, Cladodactyla, Brandt, 1835 nigricorne, Acridium, Burmeister, 1838 nigricornis, Anthocoris, Zetterstedt, 1838 niloticus, Sudis, Ehrenberg, 1829 norvegicum, Dictyonema, Kjerulf, 1865 nubeculosa, Tipula, Meigen, 1804 Nupedia Karl, 1930 obscura, Holothuria, Lesueur, 1824 Ophiocomina Koehler, 1920 ... sds Ophioderma Miiller & Troschel, 1840 Page 67, 138, 105, 138, 98. 313 205 126 104 246 141 262 329 103 268 209 101 105 105 207 13 103 126 308 104 228 341 244 22 212 105 119 25 45 45 195 269 131 195 291 50 288 333 104 45 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 375 Page Ophiopholis Miller & Troschel, 1842 se