Hyatt ti a —— — SHADE Bsiuerm oF ae eae eo ae | [ie ce contents Fronear |i Index Front/Rear ei EDGES TRIMMED/UNTRIMMED BOARD HEIGHT* ~ LETTERING—GOLD/FOIL LEATHER T.P.-SHADE Other Instructions: ** for library use * for bindery use onl _ DUNN & WILSON LTD., FALKIRK oe Periodical and Reference Binding <> THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 30 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 Publication Office, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD 1974 (All rights reserved) grea TAD 101008 10 rk me: SAUT AION AQ Wa? ¢ TABLE OF CONTENTS Opinion 990. Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816 (Insecta, Sei eae Soe: nation of a type-species under the plenary powers ... Lectotype fixations for Papilio midamus Linnaeus and Papilio mulciber Cramer (Insecta, Lepidoptera) Opinion 991. Hetererannis Warren, 1904 (Insecta, y SPREE: age nation of a type-species under the plenary powers ... : ; Opinion 992. Gammarus aequicauda (Martynov, 1931) (Crustacea, Amphipoda): validated under the plenary powers Opinion 993. Echinocorys scutata Leske, 1778 as Apa eetton of a neotype under the plenary powers Opinion 994. Tatura Butler, [1888] (Insecta, ee peesenon of a type-species under the plenary powers : are Opinion 995. Psodos Treitschke, 1825 Cniee a a validation of emendation from Psoidos Opinion 996. Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoi- dea): designation of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 997. Anoplius Dufour, 1844 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): desig- nation of a type-species under the plenary powers together with the designation of neotypes for two nominal species Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (Annelida, Oligochaeta): designation of a neotype in accordance with accustomed usage. Problems arising from the misidentification of the species by Savigny (1822 & 1826). By R. W. Sims (Department of PEI: British Museum (Natural History), London S.W.7) oe , ‘ Request that the International Commission rule to correct the homonymy in the family-group name DREPANIDAE, currently in use in Insecta and Pisces. By C. G. Gruchy (Ichthyology Unit, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada) Ae Nipponaphera Habe, 1961 (Gastropoda): proposed designation of a type- species under the plenary powers. By H. A. Rehder Laie Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Til Page 21 23 25 27 35 37 IV Macgillivraya Grote, 1894 (Insecta, Collembola): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Willem N. Ellis (Jnstitut voor Taxonomische Zoélogie, het Zoélogisch Museum, University of Amsterdam) and Peter F. Bellinger (Biology Department, San Fernando Valley State College, Northridge, California) . Haematopinus eurysternus (Denny, 1842) (Haematopinidae, Anoplura, Insecta): proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Ke Chung Kim and Christian F. Weisser (The Frost Entomological Museum, Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State Univer- sity, University Park, Pa. 16802, U.S.A.) Gammarus setosus Dementieva, 1931 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): pro- posed validation under the plenary powers. By N. L. Tzvetkova (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) ... Rhopalidia Lepeletier, 1836 (Hymenoptera, Vespidae): proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers. By O. W. Richards (University of London, London, England) 3 See Pe eo Ae Lachryma Sowerby, [1832] (Mollusca): proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By W. O. corohere (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) .. p Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda): request for the designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By A. G. Beu (New Zealand Geological Survey, DSIR, Lower Hutt, New Zealand) LORIIDAE (Aves)—Author and date: proposal for amendment of Opinion 938. By G.N. Kashin (Moscow) Formica maxima Moore, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers in accordance with Article 23 (a-b). By W. D. L. Ride (The Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, W.A. 6000, Australia) and R. W. Taylor (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra a A.C.T. 2601, Australia) "5 : ‘ Application for the conservation of the generic name Striglina Guenée, 1877 (Lepidoptera, Thyrididae, Striglinae). By Paul E. S. ie (British Museum (Natural History) London S.W.7) . Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839 (Insecta, Hemiptera-Heteroptera, Coreidae): a request for the validation of the commonly used type-species. By R. O’Shea (Biological Sciences Group, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06268) rd aS at 13 Page 39 42 47 49 51 54 57 58 61 63 Opinion 998. Gryllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763 (Insecta, Orthoptera): neotype designated under the plenary powers Opinion 999. Plautus Brunnich, 1772 (Aves): suppressed under the plenary powers = Sh — ae ie a Opinion 1000. Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903 Caste PURER SEI, designation of a type-species s Opinion 1001. Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803] als COP a validated under the plenary powers Opinion 1002. Phalaena tinea xylostella Linnaeus, 1758: refusal to use the plenary powers to designate a neotype Proposed suppression of the name Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895 (Pisces: Galaxiidae). By R. M. McDowall (Fisheries Research Division, iy of scsi and Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand) . “a é a a a BN “oe aE Embletonia pallida Alder & Hancock, 1854, the specific name to be protected against the nomen oblitum Tergipes adspersus Nordmann, 1845 (Mollusca Opisthobranchia). By Henning Lemche (Univer- sitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetetsparken 15, 2100 Copen- hagen @, Denmark) "yy Polycera faeroensis—Request for a ruling on authorship and date (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia). By Henning Lemche (Univer- sitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetetsparken 15, 2100 Copen- hagen @, Denmark) or Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Pieridae): a proposal to designate a neotype under the plenary powers. By F. Martin Brown (Fountain Valley Rural Station, Colorado pes Colorado, 80911, U.S.A.) ae ze 3 a Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): request for designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Karel BeneS (Afrika 20, Prague 6), Tikahiko Naito (Entomological Labora- tory, College of Agriculture, University of Osaka Prefecture, Sakai, Osaka) and Teiichi Okutani (Entomological Laboratory, Faculty Su Agriculture, Kobe University, Rokkodai, Nada-ku, Kobe) : Vv Page (Hl 80 82 84 86 88 90 91 92 95 VI Psednura longicornis Sjéstedt, 1920 (Insecta, Orthoptera): request for use of the plenary powers to set aside all previous lectotype desig- nations and to designate as lectotype a syntype here specified. By K. H. L. Key (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia) oe ois aaa Calyptraea striata Gray, 1825 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers. By C. O. van Regteren Altena (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda, Enoplida): a request for sup- pression; Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 proposed for the Official List. By W. D. Hope (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560) and D. G. Murphy (National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop- ment, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 20014) Cerithium Bruguiére, 1789 (Gastropoda): proposed preservation by designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Richard (Joseph R.) Houbrick (Smithsonian lian sci Center, Washington, D.C. 20560) oe 5 Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By David Rosen (Department of Entomology, The Hebrew iit wet is Agriculture, Rehovet, Israel) ihe Drosophila carinata Grimshaw, 1901 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed suppression under the plenary powers in order to preserve Droso- phila mercatorum Patterson and Wheeler, 1942. By H. L. Carson (University of Hawaii), D. E. Hardy (University of Hawaii), L. H. Throckmorton (University of Chicago), M. Wasserman (City University of New York) and M. R. Wheeler (University of Texas) Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera, Dolichopodidae): request for suppression under the plenary powers of the designation by Macquart, 1827 of H. jaculus Fallén as type of the genus in favour of H. nebulosus Fallén in order to conserve consistent usage. By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C., U.S.A. 20560), Harold Robinson (U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C., U.S.A. 20560), Hans Ulrich (Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum A. Koenig, Bonn, Germany) and Richard L. Hurley ee State pdb Arcata, California, U.S.A. 95521) de Page 97 102 104 108 112 118 Oscinella Becker, 1909: proposed designation of type-species, under the plenary powers (Diptera, Chloropidae). By C. W. Sabrosky (Syste- matic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.) Leucospis gigas Fabricius (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Leucospidae): proposed to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. By Z. Bouéek (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) Madiza Fallén, 1810 (Diptera, Milichiidae): proposed designation of type-species, under the plenary powers. By C. W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A.) sng Be. Opinion 1003. Orthoceras Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Cephalopoda): placed on the Official List of Generic Names : eS. ee Opinion 1004. SCUTELLUIDAE Richter & Richter, 1955 (Trilobita): validated under the plenary powers ee a ig ne. Opinion 1005. Trypeta Meigen, 1803 (Insecta: Diptera); Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836 (Insecta: Coleoptera); Trypetesa Norman, 1903 (Crustacea: Cirripedia): removal of homonymy in Family-Group Names under the plenary powers ss wed oes Opinion 1006. Poteriocrinus hemisphericus Shumard, 1858 (Echino- dermata, Crinoidea): designation of a neotype under the plenary powers ie eh oP he Opinion 1007. Coscinocyathus Bornemann, 1884 sags aaa designation of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 1008. Siphona Meigen, 1803 and Haematobia Lepeletier and Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Diptera): designations of type-species under the plenary powers ae ag Sa: ine Le Opinion 1009. Vanikoro Quoy and Gaimard, 1832 Dieta Gas- tropoda): made available under the plenary powers.. Opinion 1010. Callopanchax Myers, 1933 (Pisces): cEseEaer of a type-species under the plenary powers Ree Opinion 1011. Cypselus abessynicus Streubel, 1848 aie eevee suppressed under the plenary powers . : Vil Page 121 124 126 142 147 151 153 155 157 167 Vill Opinion 1012. Thalascaris Bate, 1878 ae a a sup- pressed under the plenary powers Bs Opinion 1013. Priapus humanus Linnaeus, 1758 and Holothuria priapus Linnaeus, 1767 (Priapulida): suppression under the plenary powers On the specific name of the Hottentot Teal. By W. D. L. Ride (President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 (Mammalia): proposed validation under the plenary powers. By W. D. L. Ride alma Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) f Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa): proposed designation under the plenary powers. By the late H. Dighton Thomas and Anna B. Hastings ena of the British Museum Cars Fe London) $5 ae : oa a ; The type-species of the genus Pseudanisakis Layman & Borokova, 1926 (Nematoda). By D. I. Gibson (British Museum (Natural History), London S.W.7) : ae be 2s “a8 35. te Amm. defossus Simpson, 1843 (Ammonoidea, Jurassic): an application to designate as lectotype a specimen other than that wrongly identified as the pew By T. A. Getty (Portsmouth City Museum, England) . i ‘ite BS ate ae sa ae Apis rotundata Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed sup- pression of lectotype and designation of neotype in accord with Megachile rotundata Auct. By R. B. Roberts (Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.) Renoidea Brown, 1827 (Foraminifera): proposal for suppression under the plenary powers. By Richard W. Ponder (Geology Department, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queens- land, Australia) = nl Eriophyes Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Acarina, Eriophyoidea): proposal for designation under the plenary powers, of type-species in harmony with current use. By V. G. Shevtchenko (Vice-President of the Acarology Section, All-Union Entomological Society, U.S.S.R.) = SS a Request for a ruling on the stem of Family-Group Names based on the type-genus Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758. By V. D. Vladykov stl fessor of Biology, University of Ottawa, Canada) he ; Page 169 171 173 7S 177 182 185 190 193 196 198 Establishment of a neotype for Pseudogeloius decorsei (1. Bolivar, 1905) (Insecta, Orthoptera, Pyrgomorphidae). By D. Keith McE. Kevan (Department of Entomology and Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory, Macdonald Campus, McGill University, Ste Anne de Bellevue, Que., Canada) ao oa Synalpheus neptunus (Dana, 1852): neotype. By A. H. Banner and D. M. Banner Claes Institute adi Marine page ieee a Hawaii) = ‘ Lonomia Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Attacidae): proposed designation of a type-species By Claude Lemaire (17 Rue d’ Edimbourg, 75008 Paris, France) Bes ake PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887 (Mammalia): proposed suppression of Family Name under the plenary powers; together with valida- tion of Platychoerops Charlesworth, 1855 (Mammalia) not Klun- zinger, 1879 (Pisces). By Philip D. Gingerich ee sae Museum, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) ... “Gen.n., Sp.n” after 1930: is the generic name available? By Curtis Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology hick U.S. eee of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.)... ; os : Proposed emendation to Nysson of the name Nysso Latreille, 1796 (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae). By A. S. Menke (Systematic Entom- ology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., clo U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C.), R. M. Bohart (Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis, California) and O. W. Richards (c/o Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History) London, England) Euplilis Risso, 1826 (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae): proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Rhopalum Stephens, 1829. By A. S. Menke, R. M. Bohart and O. W. Richards acca as given in the paper above) : = Index to Authors List of Decisions in this volume Index to Key Names ... Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published volume 30 IX Page 200 203 205 207 210 217 219 221 223 224 231 Page Corrigenda 233 Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the present volume was published... ae a on By ih 234 Instructions to Binder ae See in S55 Aas ae 3351S } Volume 30, Part 1 6th July, 1973 pp. 1-64 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL OMENCLATURE fp NAT mess a ot wide The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS Page _ Election of Officers and Council 1 Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology _ Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on oe ety 8 in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. 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. 1973 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE | re. & A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. W. D. L. Ripe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (8 August 1973) Vice-President: Dr. L. B. HottHuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Secretary: Mr. R. V. MELVILLE (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, i S.W.7) (30 January 1968) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) (16 | December 1954). Pisces; Echinodermata Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958). Arthropoda, ecology m Dr. Henning LemcueE (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). é Opisthobranchia ; Phylogeny Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) F (31 May 1960). Echinoidea, Asteroidea Te. Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, : Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography Professor E. BiInDER (Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) 21 May 1962). ’ Mollusca Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, y Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mollusca Dr. L. B. HotrHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 7 (28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea en) Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at ‘Harvard College, Cambridge, rae Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithol logy; Evolution = Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) — (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. W. D. L. Rie (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) (President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil a Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY WS. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, <> Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 28 August 1963) (Councillor). Diptera; Systematics — + = Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Department of Geology, University of Arizona, ‘Tucson, — ‘ Arizona, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mammalia Dr. Eugene ElsENMANN (American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, = , U.S.A.) (30 January 1968). Ornithology Mr. R. V. MeLviLLe (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, S. W. 7) 0° January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology Dr. Y. I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, Uz S.S.R.) Nt (30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea Professor F. M. BAYER (Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 33149, U.S. A) 7% (20 February 1972). Octocorallia; Systematics A y Dr. John O. Cortuiss (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U. S.A) 20 February 1972). Protozoa; Systematics Prof. Dr. H. K. ERBEN (Institut fiir Paldontologie, Universitit Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 & February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology ; Professor T. HABE (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 197). : Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH | \JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972). Mollusca Dr. I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW 75 BD) (20 February 1972). Lepidoptera Me Dr. A. WILLINK (Unstituto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical se Hymenoptera - Prof. B. B. RoHpENDORF (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, iMescoie U.S.S. R= (21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology 7 sh G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) ( (28 September 1972). - epidoptera Dr. a Dupuis (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, ie 28 September 1972). Diptera ib BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 30, Part 1 (pp. 1-64) 6th July 1973 Election of Officers and Council In accordance with the By-Laws, Section ILA, The Commission has held an election for Officers and Council following the VIIth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1972. The following have been elected: arn President: Dr. W. D. L. Ride (2 Ds Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Holthuis é Councillors: Dr. O. Kraus 11 JULI973 Prof. E. Mayr Seer Dr. C. W. Sabrosky Nees a S Le 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 [those marked with an asterisk involve the appli- cation of Articles 23(a-b) and (79)b]: (1) Designation of a type-species for Nicodrilus Bouche, 1972 (Oligochaeta). Z.N.S.) 272. (2) Correction of homonymy of DREPANIDAE in Insecta and Pisces. Z.N.(S.) 1958. (3) Designation of a type-species for Nipponaphera Habe, 1961 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 2007. (4) Suppression of Macgillivraya Grote, 1894 (Insecta, Collembola). Z.N.(S.) 2008. (5) Validation of Haematopinus eurysternus Denny, 1842 (Insecta, Anoplura). Z.N.(S.) 2009. (6) Validation of Gammarus setosus Dementieva, 1931 (Crustacea, Amphi- poda). Z.N.(S.) 2015. (7) Suppression of Rhopalidia Lepeletier, 1836 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2017. (8) Designation of a type-species for Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 2021. *(9) Suppression of Formica maxima Moore, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2023. *(10) Suppression of Daristane Walker, 1859 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2025. 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (11) Designation of a type-species for Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 2026. The following new applications have been received since the publication of Vol. 29(4) on 29 December 1972 [those marked with an asterisk ask for the application of Articles 23 (a-b) and 79(b).] *(1) Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda : Enoplida), a request for suppression; Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 proposed for the Official List. Z.N.(S.) 2031 (W. D, Hope & D. G. Murphy). (2) Cerithium Brugiére, [1789], (Gastropoda): proposed preservation by designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2032 (R. Houbrick). (3) Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea); proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2033 (D. Rosen). (4) ARENARIIDAE Stejneger, 1885 (Aves), validation of. Z.N.(S.) 2034 (Kashin). *(5) Drosophila carinata Grimshaw, 1901 (Insecta, Diptera); proposed suppression under the plenary powers in order to preserve Drosophila mercatorum Patterson and Wheeler, 1942. Z.N.(S.) 2035 (H. L. Carson, L. H. Throckmorton, M. Wasserman & M. R. Wheeler). (6) Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera, Dolichopodidae): request for suppression under the plenary powers of the designation by Macquart, 1827 of H. jaculus Fallén as type of the genus in favour of H. nebulosus Fallén in order to conserve consistent usage. Z.N.(S.) 2036 (G. C. Steyskal, H. Robinson, H. Ulrich & R. L. Hurley). (7) Oscinella Becker, 1909: proposed designation of type-species, under the plenary powers (Diptera, Chloropidae). Z.N.(S.) 2037 (C. W. Sabrosky). *(8) Leucopsis gigas Fabricius (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Leucopsidae) proposed to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Z.N.(S.) 2038 (Z. Bouéek). (9) Ammonites defossus Simpson, 1843 (Ammonoidea, Jurassic), an application to designate as lectotype a specimen other than that wrongly identified as the holotype. Z.N.(S.) 2039 (T. A. Getty). (10) Madiza Fallén, 1810 (Diptera, Milichiidae): proposed designation of type- species, under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2040 (C. W. Sabrosky). *(11) Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1892 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): request for suppres- sion under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2041 (G. L. Voss). (12) Apis rotunda Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed suppression of lectotype and designation of neotype in accordance with Megachile rotundata Auct. Z.N.(S.) 2042 (R. B. Roberts). c/o British Museum (Natural History), MARGARET DOYLE Cromwell Road, Scientific Assistant London, SW7 5BD, England International Commission on March 1973 Zoological Nomenclature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING FAMILY NAMES CASSIDAE AND HARPIDAE. Z.N.(S.) 1938 (See volume 28 : 56-58) By Harald A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.20560, U.S.A.) I am in full agreement with Dr. A. G. Beu’s application to retain the family name HARPIDAE as a taxon in the Mollusca, with the exception of his reference to the earliest usage of the family-group name. The earliest such name that I have been able to find is HARPINA Bronn, 1849 (Handb.Gesch.Natur. 3 (2) : Index paleont. sect.B (Enum. paleont.) : 469, introduced to comprise the genera Harpa and Dolium. This is obviously the reference by Grassé et al. that puzzled Cernohorsky (Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 29 : 109) : Franc (Grassé et al., Traité Zoologie 5 : 310) has in error written Brown instead of Bronn as the author of the family name Harpidae. Thus the family-group name to be placed on the Official List should be: HARPIDAE Bronn, 1849, as HARPINA (Mollusca). The family-group name HARPEDIDAE, suggested by Cernohorsky would be quite similar to HARPIDIDAE Whittington, 1950 (Trilobita), based on Harpides Beyrich, 1849. The name HARPETIDAE is to be preferred. I likewise support Beu’s application regarding the family-group name CASSIDAE, with the correction of the earliest type designation of Cassis as pointed out by Cernohorsky (loc. cit.). FURTHER REMARKS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF THE GENERIC NAME ONISCIDIA H. & A. ADAMS, 1853. Z.N.(S.) 1983 (see volume 29, pages 41-43) By W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) I have recently received a comment on my proposal on the genus-group name Oniscidia pending with the Commission, from Dr. W. K. Emerson, the senior author of the genus-group name Cancellomorum Emerson & Old, which was supposed to have replaced Oniscidia of authors. A recent literature discovery of a further use (or possible subsequent erection of Oniscidia) coupled with Dr. Emerson’s contention that Oniscidia of H. & A. Adams, 1853, is merely another misspelling of Oniscia, necessitates further information to be supplied to the Commission; (Dr. Emerson also stated that H. & A. Adams did not intend to propose the new generic name for they credit Oniscidia to Swainson). My comments are as follows: H. & A. Adams’ intentions in erecting Oniscidia have no bearing on this case, since they consider Oniscidia to be a valid genus-group taxon as demonstrated by their generic diagnosis and inclusion of species. Their citation of “Swainson” as author of Oniscidia is incidental and as erroneous as all other authors’ citation of Swainson as author of Oniscidia, which was a mere misspelling. Dr. Emerson’s contention that H. & A. Adams’s Oniscidia is also a misspelling (and he suggests that the Commission clarify the interpretation of Article 19 of I.C.Z.N.) is of considerable significance, should the Commission rule that Oniscidia is a mis- spelling. E. A. Smith (Journ. Malacology. 1895, 4 : 14) acknowledges the genus- group name Oniscidia as a valid name and properly credits the authorship to H. & A. Adams, 1853, together with a reference to publication and page. Smith also includes 6 species in Oniscidia. Should the Commission rule that Oniscidia H. & A. Adams, 1853, is a misspelling (as claimed by Dr. Emerson), then Oniscidia E. A. Smith, 1895, would be the next available erection of the genus-group name, since Oniscidia H. & A. Adams (if ruled a misspelling) would not enter into nomenclature (Article 33(b) of the Code), and would not pre-occupy Oniscidia E. A. Smith, 1895. I doubt that Smith’s Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1, July 1973. 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Oniscidia, which is properly credited to H. & A. Adams, 1853, could be ruled to bea misspelling of Oniscia Sowerby. I thought it advisable to draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that the elimination of Oniscidia H. & A. Adams, 1853, would not automatically solve the taxonomic problem, as E. A. Smith’s Oniscidia of 1895 would also have to be taken into consideration. P. A. Maxwell and A. G. Beu (New Zealand Geological Survey, D.S.I.R., Lower Hutt, New Zealand) We strongly support the application by Cernohorsky (1972, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 19 : 41-3) to have Oniscidia placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. We agree with Cernohorsky’s interpretation that H. and A. Adams (1853, Genera of Recent Mollusca, | : 220) clearly differentiated the taxon from Morum Roding, 1798 (=Oniscia Sowerby, 1824; = Oniscidia Swainson, 1840, incorrect subsequent spelling of Oniscia Sowerby) and gave a good diagnosis and included a list of species that define the taxon exactly in the now current sense of Oniscidia = Cancellomorum Emerson and Old, 1963. However, Dr. W. K. Emerson and Mr. Cernohorsky have pointed out to us Morch’s usage of “‘Oniscidia Sw[ainson]” a year earlier than that of H. and A. Adams. Morch (1852, Catalogus Conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso D’Aguirra & Gadea Comes de Yoldi : 111) clearly set out Oniscidia as a subgenus discrete from Morum “Bolt.” Roding, synonymised with Morum the names “‘Oniscia, Sow. Theliostoma Aut. Sow. Gen. Lambidium Link’’, included in Oniscidia the single species cancellata Sowerby, 1824 (type-species of Oniscidia as now currently used =Cancellomorum Emerson and Old) and included three species in Morum that define it as now currently used. Therefore we consider that Morch regarded Oniscidia as a separate name and was using it for a taxon separate from Oniscia, and was not simply repeating Swainson’s incorrect subsequent spelling. We consider that, despite MOrch’s attributing it to “Sw[ainson]’, Oniscidia should be treated in the same way as the many other briefly- introduced generic names in his Yoldi catalogue, and be regarded as an available new name proposed in this work. At least one previous author (Olsson, 1931, Bull. Amer. Paleont., 17 (63) : 94-96) attributed Oniscidia (consistently incorrectly spelled Oniscidea) to Morch, although without citing a date or bibliographic reference; as far as we are aware he can have been referring only to MGrch’s usage in the Yoldi catalogue. Proposals of names to replace invalid usage of Oniscidia Swainson for this taxon have not found general acceptance, especially in Australasia, and we strongly urge the acceptance of Oniscidia M6rch, 1852 (type-species, by monotypy : Oniscia cancellata Sowerby, 1824) as the valid name for the taxon. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF HYLA CRUCIALIS (AMPHIBIA). Z.NAS.) 1982 (see volume 29, pages 39-40) By Ronald I. Crombie (National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 20009, U.S.A.) Trueb’s (1972) proposal for the conservation of Hyla lichenata (Gosse, 1851) and suppression of the overlooked senior synonym Hyla crucialis Harlan, 1826, is uncon- vincing. The use of the plenary powers to preserve the generally unfamiliar name of a poorly known species is of questionable necessity. Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5 There is no doubt that the names Hyla crucialis Harlan (1826 : 64), H. lichenata (Gosse 1851 : 362) and H. anochloros (Gosse 1851 : 364) all apply to the same species; I was aware of this when I first brought the problem to Dr. Trueb’s attention in 1971. It cannot be denied that H. /ichenata prevails in the literature. However, are any of the three names involved in ‘“‘general current use’’? Declaration 43 (Bull. Zool. Nomencl., vol. 27, pts. 3/4, p. 135, Dec. 1970) states (paragraph iii) that, “mentioning of a name in a synonymy or its mere listing in an abstracting publication, or in a nomenclator or other index or list of names does not constitute publication in the sense of Article 23b,”! and later (paragraph iv) that, each“ citation of a name is to be considered on its own merits regardless of the nature or the title of the work in which the name appears’’...The inference is that mere publication of a name without adding information does not constitute usage for the purposes of establishing a name in the literature. The West Indian herpetological literature is littered with cases of a single paper’s being published in two or more journals, often without change. Faunal checklists and other papers containing no new information are also common. Under these criteria, most of the papers cited by Trueb to substantiate H. lichenata’s entrenchment in the literature are invalidated. Barbour’s papers (1930, 1935, 1937) are mere lists with no new data. Nieden (1923) is a translation of Boulenger (1882). Duellman (1960, 1970) and Taylor (1948) mention H. lichenata in passing in discussions of other groups of hylid frogs. Trueb’s (1970) comments are speculatory as she had not examined a specimen of H. lichenata at that time. Tyler (1971) used /ichenata although I had informed him of the existence of the Harlan name before publication. Almost all recent authors have depended on the data provided by Dunn (1926, 1929) Only Lynn (1940), Lynn and Dent (1943), and Panton (1952) added small amounts of information on the species. The most recent review of Jamaican amphibians (Schwartz and Fowler, in press) used the name Hyla crucialis on the authority of a paper (Crombie, MS) I had written but delayed publishing pending the recommendations of the Inter- national Congress on the dispute over Article 23b (see Mayr et al 1971, Collette et al 1972, and Corliss 1972). Unfortunately, Dr. Trueb’s proposal appeared before the issue could be resolved. The name Hyla lichenata (Gosse) is not in current use as defined by the ‘“‘five different authors in at least ten publications” criterion of the old Article 23b and the new, revised Article 79b. Furthermore, the name is unfamiliar to many herpetologists, even some working in the West Indies. The species remains known from less than two dozen specimens, many lacking locality data. This paucity of specimens is partly due to the secretive habits of the frog but primarily reflects the lack of work on Antillan hylids. The fact that Harlan’s Hy/a crucialis, published by a pioneer herpetologist in a well known journal, has remained overlooked for 145 years is ample evidence that West Indian tree frogs are a poorly studied group. MHarlan’s type specimen is still extant (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 2180), although it has been unrecog- nized as a type for many years. The statute of limitations was instituted to protect well known names from replac- ment by obscure senior synonyms. To use this statute to suppress older names in poorly studied groups or names overlooked by careless early workers is inappropriate. Stability would not be best served by setting aside a valid senior synonym represented by a type specimen in favour of an infrequently used younger name with no type. As a concerned student of the ecology and systematics of West Indian hylid frogs, I disagree with Dr. Trueb’s proposal. The case involves two trivial, poorly documented names and I see no reason why priority should not prevail. I recommend that Hyla crucialis Harlan, 1826, be used instead of its junior synonym Hyla lichenata (Gosse, 1851) as the name of the large Jamaican tree frog. 1The substance of this provision is now embodied in Art. 79 (b) (i) of the Code, see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 186, 1972. R.V.M. °This provision appears as Art. 79 (b) (ii) of the Code. R.V.M. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REFERENCES Barsour, T. 1930. A list of Antillean reptiles and amphibians. Zoologica 11 (4) : 61-116. Po T. 1935. A second list of Antillean reptiles and amphibians. /bid. 19 (3) : 77-141. BarBour, T. 1937. Third list of Antillean reptiles and amphibians. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 82 (2) : 77-166. BouLENGER, G. A. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the collection of the British Museum. 2nd. Ed. London, xvi + 503 pp. Co.teTTeE, B. B., D. M. CouHen and J. A. Peters. 1972. Stability in zoological nomenclature. Science 177 : 452-453. Coruiss, J. O. 1972. Priority and stability in zoological nomenclature: Resolution of the problem of Article 23b at the Monaco Congress. Science 177 : 1120. Crompiz, R. I. MS. The ecology and systematics of Jamaican hylid frogs. DUELLMAN, W. E. 1960. Redescription of Hyla valancifer. Studies of American hylid frogs. II. Herpetologica 16 (1) : 55-57. DUELLMAN, W. E. 1970. The hylid frogs of Middle America. Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Kansas, 1, xi + 753 pp Dunn, E. R. 1926. The frogs of Jamaica. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 38 (4) : 111-130. Dunn, E.R. 1929. On the trail of the snorer. Nature 13 (2) : 110-112. GosseE, P. H. 1851. A naturalist’s sojourn in Jamaica. Longman’s Brown, Green, and Longman’s, London, v—xxvi + 508 pp. HARLAN, R. 1826. A new species of Hyla. American Journ. Sci. Arts 10 : 64-65. Lynn, W.G. 1940. I. Amphibians. Jn Lynn, W. G. and C. Grant, The herpetology of Jamaica. Bull. Inst. Jamaica, Sci. Ser., no. 1 : 1-148 (1-60). Lynn, W. G. and J. N. Dent. 1943. Notes on Jamaican amphibians. Copeia 1943 (4) : 234-242. Mayr, E., G. G. Simpson, and E. EIssENMANN. 1971. Stability in zoological nomen- clature. Science 174 : 1041-1042. NieDEN, F. 1923. AnuralI. Subordo Aglossa and Phaneroglossa, Sectio. 1, Arcifera. Das Tierreich, Lief. 46, Berlin, i-xxxii + 584 pp. PANTON, E. S. 1952. Our ground and tree frogs—Glimpses into their life and habits. Nat. Hist. Notes Nat. Hist. Soc. Jamaica 5 (53) : 87-92 + 94. ScHwartz, A. and D. C. Fowier. In press. The Anura of Jamaica: A progress report. Stud. Fauna Curacao and other Carib. Islands. TayLor, E. H. 1948. Two new hylid frogs from Costa Rica. Copeia 1948 (4) : 233-238. Trues, L. 1970. The evolutionary relationships of casque-headed treefrogs with co-ossified skulls (family Hylidae). Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist. 18 : 547-716. Trues, L. 1972. Hyla crucialis Harlan, 1826 (Amphibia) : Proposed suppression under plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1982, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 (1) : 39-40. Tver, M. J. 1971. The phylogenetic significance of vocal sac structure in hylid frogs. Univ. Kansas Publ., Mus. Nat. Hist. 19 : 319-360. ADDENDUM TO THE PROPOSAL THAT THE GENUS NAME TEUTHIS LINNAEUS (PISCES) BE SUPPRESSED. Z.N.(S.) 1721 By D. J. Woodland (Department of Zoology, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., 2351, Australia) This comment relates to proposals before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the generic name Siganus Forsskal, 1775 and Teuthis Linnaeus, 1766 (Nielsen & Klausewitz Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 16, Taylor Bull. zool. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 Nomencl. 26 : 178, and Woodland Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 190). In particular it is a clarification of the status of the specimen designated by Taylor (/oc. cit.) as lectotype of Teuthis javus Linnaeus, 1766 and discussed by Woodland (/oc. cit., para. 6). I have now examined the said specimen from the Gronovius collection (British Museum (Nat. Hist.) Reg. No. 1853, 11. 12. 30). Wheeler (1958, Bull. British Museum, Nat. Hist., Histological Series 1 : 231) was correct in asserting that this specimen was not of that species generally known as Teuthis javus Linnaeus but of that generally known as Siganus oramin Bloch, 1801. In belief that the specimen was of that species described by Gronovius (1763, Zoophylaci) as his species no. 352, which was later adopted by Linnaeus as his Teuthis javus (loc. cit., p. 507), Wheeler (loc. cit., p. 231) nominated the specimen as “‘holotype’’ and suggested a number of nomenclatural changes. However, as I will show these changes are not necessary since the specimen does not belong to that species described and figured by Gronovius. We may consider Gronovius’ description of his species no. 352 as consisting of two parts, the verbal and the figure (Joc. cit., p. 113, pl. 8, fig. 4). The figure is unmis- takeably of that species generally known as Teuthis javus Linnaeus; there is no room for confusion. On the other hand because of the use of qualitative terms most of the verbal description could apply to either the species figured or the specimen 1853. 11.12.30. However, one portion of the description does not tally with the specimen, though it does agree with the species figured. Quote, “infra oculos in utroque latere regio lata, quae squamis minutis confusanei obtecta est’’, i.e. below the eyes on either side a broad region covered with small scales. The scale cover on the cheeks is a distinctive characteristic of Teuthis javus Linnaeus. The specimen, 1853.11.12.30, has no scales on the cheeks which is typical of the species to which it belongs (although there may be a few weak scattered scales in some specimens). Furthermore, Gronovius (loc. cit.) describes his species as ‘dark liver-brownish with frequent oblongish spots on the sides, bluish-white, oriented longitudinally, towards the abdomen broader and more variegated’’ translated). Again this fits his illustration but not the species represented by the specimen. In addition Teuthis javus Linnaeus is unique amongst its family in having more than 30 scale rows between the lateral line and the bases of the anterior dorsal spines; specimen 1853.11.12.30 has 21 to 23 scale rows. I am forced to conclude that the verbal description and figure of the Gronovius species no. 352 are of the one species, Teuthis javus Linnaeus as widely understood. I am also led to conclude that there is no evidence that specimen 1853.11.12.30 has contributed even in part to Gronovius’ species no. 352. This is not altogether surprising for as Wheeler (/oc. cit., pp. 188-9) stated the British Museum did not acquire the whole Gronovius collection, and what it did acquire contained some specimens that were not described by Gronovius. Since Linnaeus’ Teuthis javus (loc. cit., p. 507) is essentially a précis of Gronovius’ species no. 352, and is in fact diagnosed by Linnaeus as a siganid by the ventral fin formula and is that species widely known as Teuthis javus by the description of the colour pattern (longitudinal bluish spots), it follows that the designation of specimen 1853.11.12.30 as lectotype must be considered null and void. The specimen on which Gronovius species no. 352 and hence Teuthis javus Linnaeus were based remains lost. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED NEOTYPE OF THE GRAPTOLITE SPECIES GRAPTOLITHUS NILSSONI BARRANDE, 1850, Z.N.(S.) 1934 By I. Strachan (Geology Department, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, England.) The purpose of the proposal by D. Palmer appears to be the stability of the use of the specific name ni/ssoni among the graptolite faunas of the Silurian so that past and present stratigraphic usage is kept as near together as possible. In this context the authorship of the name is immaterial since there are no other graptolites with the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature same specific name which could cause confusion. It is also clear from the historical account that graptolite workers have been aware since 1876 of the difficulties in the interpretation of Barrande’s description and figures and, in consideration of this, the effective diagnosis of the species has been that of Lapworth 1876, none of Barrande’s type material agreeing with the general usage of the last 100 years. What Palmer does not seem to have considered is the effect of abandoning the name Graptolithus nilssoni Barrande, 1850 altogether. Under Art.70b, Urbanek can be considered as establishing a new species in 1963 as the type of his new genus, Neodiversograptus nilssoni sensu Urbanek 1954, since this is a very clear indication of his intentions. If this is accepted, the stratigraphic usage of the name remains as Palmer wishes to have it but there is no necessity to designate a neotype unless it is insisted that all species with unsatisfactory (by modern standards) type specimens must have currently ‘satisfactory’ neotypes designated. Further objections to the proposal for a neotype can be made on a matter of general principle and with special reference to Art.75 (on neotypes). 1. It is a dangerous precedent to allow existing type material to be totally suppressed for the sake of retaining a trivial name whose usage has always been subject to some uncertainty, and which in this case is unnecessary for the purpose stated. Under Art.75 : the following may be noted: 2. since Barrande’s types exist, there can be no need to designate a ‘‘neotype” in the usual meaning of the term. 3. there are no “exceptional circumstances’’ (75.a.i) since Urbanek (1966) has already provided the new name required for the closely allied species Lobo- graptus progenitor. 4. Qualifying conditions 75.c.3, 4 and 5 are specifically excluded in Palmers’ proposals. I therefore wish to raise an objection to the proposals for the use of the plenary powers as set out in Z.N.(S.) 1934 on grounds of a) being quite unnecessary for the retention of the stratigraphic name and the precise definition of the species and b) not meeting the conditions for a neotype as laid down in the code. The problem of the date of authorship of Urbanek’s species remains since his original description of the genus Neodiversograptus in 1963 gives as type species Monograptus nilssoni Lapworth, 1876, sensu Urbanek, 1954. At face value this might give N. nilssoni Urbanek, 1954 but consideration of the example quoted under Art. 70 (b) would suggest N. nilssoni Urbanek 1963. For tidiness, Graptolithus nilssoni Barrande, 1850 could perhaps be suppressed as a nomen dubium since he did not designate a type and his specimens are probably not specifically identifiable under the modern criteria for species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 OPINION 990 TREPSICHROIS HUBNER, 1816 (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 7repsichrois Hubner, 1816, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Papilio mulciber Cramer, 1777, is hereby designated to be type of that genus. (2) The generic name Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Papilio mulciber Cramer, 1777, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1971. (3) The specific name mulciber Cramer, 1777, as published in the binomen Papilio mulciber (type-species of Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2491. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1897) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Lt.-Col. C. F. Cowan in August 1969. Lt—Col. Cowan’s application was sent to the printer on 26 August 1969 and was published on 7 April 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26 : 240-242. 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 25 August 1971 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (71)21 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26 : 242. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 25 November 1971 the state of the voting was as follows; Affirmative votes—fifteen (15), received in the following order: Holthuis, Munroe, Mayr, Bonnet, Lemche, Simpson, Eisenmann, Jaczewski, Melville, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Binder, Ride, Forest, Kraus Negative votes—none (0) On Leave of Absence—one (1): Vokes Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Alvarado, Starobogatov Commissioner Brinck returned a late affirmative vote. Commissioner Ride, in returning his vote, wrote, ‘““We are told that P. midamus L. “covered two species” one of which is currently regarded as ‘‘midamus proper”’ and the other P.mulciber. Before he publishes an Opinion in this case, I ask that the Secretary should satisfy himself that midamus is now securely fixed in the manner assumed in the application.” Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LECTOTYPE FIXATIONS FOR PAPILIO MIDAMUS LINNAEUS AND PAPILIO MULCIBER CRAMER (INSECTA—LEPIDOPTERA) By C. F. Cowan It has been pointed out to me that, before the International Commission could approve my application (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26 (5/6): 240-242, April 1970) for the designation of Papilio mulciber Cramer, 1777, as type-species of Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816, the identity of Papilio midamus Linnaenus, 1758 (with which P. mulciber has been formerly confused) should be securely fixed. I should have appreciated the need for this, and remedy it now. 2. Moore (1883: 312) acted as first reviser in correctly establishing the interrelationship of the two species under discussion which are referred to below by the names under they have been universally known ever since, in order to avoid circumlocution. However, neither Moore nor any other author estab- lished type specimens to ensure that present usage cannot be upset. 3. The insects in question are the two sexes of P. midamus L. and the male only of P. mulciber Cramer (which is dimorphic, with a striped female). All three are dark brown on the upperside, with a bright blue ““Morpho-like”’ gloss on the forewing which also has some scattered bluish spots on the disc. The key differences are; P. midamus hindwing upperside bears two parallel rows of whitish sub- marginal spots, and the male inner margin is strongly bowed. P. mulciber hindwing upperside is immaculate, and the male forewing inner margin is straight. 4. Linnaeus (1758: 470, no. 75) described P. midamus in the customary way, with a diagnostic paragraph followed by references to published figures and the locality Asia, and closing with a descriptive paragraph. Both para- graphs fit either sex of P. midamus perfectly, and both exclude P. mulciber by mentioning the hindwing upperside series of submarginal spots. However, his three references are; [De Geer, 1748,] Act. Stockh. 1748: pl. 6 figs. 1,2. [— P. midamus 2] Ehret, [1748] pict.: pl. 3. [— P. mulciber 3] Ehret, [1749] pict.: pl. 11. [— P. midamus 3] The inclusion here of Ehret’s plate 3 was the source of later confusion. The probable reason for its inclusion will appear. 5. Linnaeus (1758: 2) tells us that he had already examined and attached written descriptions to the specimens in the collection of Queen Louisa Ulrica, that he had examined De Geer’s collection, and that he himself possessed material from, inter alia, China through Osbeck. There is good reason to believe his description was from a specimen and not from illustrations; a manuscript note in his own copy of the 1758 work indicates that he possessed the species; and it does not seem that he owned copies of the works he cited. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1] 6. When in 1764 he published his work on the Queen’s collection, Linnaeus repeated verbatim his 1758 text for P. midamus with the significant exception that he substituted for the closing paragraph a longer one which describes the P. mulciber male (posticae supra nigrae, absque punctis). This paragraph was no doubt taken from the existing draft already mentioned, in compiling which Linnaeus would have noted the Ehret plate 3 reference. 7. In the Linnaean collection now are three male specimens labelled respectively ; (a) “75 midamus’’, “Midamus 765”, and a modern circular red label printed “‘Type’’. [The 75 is the species number in the genus Papilio of Linnaeus, 1758, and the 765 is the reference in Linnaeus, 1767. This specimen has the abdomen glued on upside-down, so displaying the whitish spot on it noted by Linnaeus in his closing paragraph in 1758}. (b) ‘““Midamus”’, and “China, M. of Rock.’’ [The Marchioness of Rocking- ham was an old family friend of Sir James E. Smith, owner of the collection after Linnaeus’s death]. (c) ‘““midamus var ?”’, and “China, M. of Rock.” Specimens a and b are P. midamus as now known, and specimen c is P.mulciber Cramer as nowknown. The first label on specimen a differs from the others in being long and narrow. Mr. W. H. T. Tams and Mr. P. E. S. Whalley assure me that this is an original Linnaean label and that there is every indication that this specimen itself was in Linnaeus’s collection. This agrees with the opinion of Corbet (1942: 94), who later (1945: 92) deduced that this specimen was obtained by Pehr Osbeck at Canton, and finally (1949: 186—187) gave a good summary of the case. It was probably Corbet who, shortly before his death in 1948, added the modern “‘Type”’ label to it. Specimens b and c are clearly later additions, as is the second label on specimen a. 8. It is evident that Linnaeus possessed P. midamus and the Queens’ collection held P. mulciber before 1758, and that Linnaeus had drafted a des- cription of the latter in the Queen’s Museum. In preparing that draft he noted Ehret’s plate 3. In 1758 he described his own specimen of P. midamus, giving two correct references but adding Ehret’s plate 3. In 1764 he simply replaced his descriptive paragraph with the diraft in the Queen’s collection. In 1767 he reverted to his 1758 text. 9. I now designate as LECTOTYPE of Papilio midamus Linnaeus, 1758: 470, no. 75 the male specimen now labelled ‘‘75 midamus”’ and ‘‘Type”’ in the Linnaean collection, to which a lectotype label will be added if this paper is published. 10. I further designate, as LECTOTYPE of Papilio mulciber Cramer, the male specimen described and figured by Cramer, 1777: 45, pl. 127, fig. C. Cramer gave the habitat of the species as China and Coromandel. His figured specimen is small, with the forewing spots white rather than blue, which is characteristic of the latter area. The type locality should therefore be taken as southern India, east coast. This designation is called for because no original Cramer specimen can be traced. 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REFERENCES Corset, A. S. 1942. The Linnaean names of Indo-Australian Rhopalocera (3). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 11 (6) : 91-94 — 1945. The Linnaean names of Indo-Australian Rhopalocera (4). ibid. 14 (7-8) : 91-94 — 1949. The Linnaean names of Indo-Australian Rhopalocera (6). ibid. 18 (9-10) : 184-190. CRAMER, P. 1777 (in 1775-1782, 4 vols., see Opinion 516, appendix 3). U/tlandsche Kapellen 2. 152 pp., pls. 97-192. 4°. Amsterdam Eunret, G. D. 1748-1759. Plantae ac Papiliones rariores, depicti et aeri incisae. 15 pls. fol. London Geer, C. De. 1748. Beskrifning om en Chinesisk och en inlandsk Fjaril... K. svenska VetenskAkad. Hand. 9 (3) : 208-230, pl. 6 Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae ed. 10,1. 824 pp. 8°. Holmiae —— 1764. Museum S.R.M. Ludovicae Ulricae Reginae... vi +720 pp. 8°. Holmiae — 1767. Systema Naturae ed. 12. 1 (2). pp. 533-1327. 8°. Holmiae Moore, F. 1883. A monograph of Limnaina and Euploeina, two groups of diurnal Lepidoptera... (2), Euploeina. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1883 (3) : 253-324, pls. 29-32. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: mulciber, Papilio, Cramer, 1777, Uitl. Kapellen 2: 45, 150, pl. 127, figs. C,D Trepsichrois Hiibner, 1816, Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (1) :16 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (71)21 were cast as set 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. 990. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 July 1972 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 OPINION 991 HETERERANNIS WARREN, 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 Hetererannis Warren, 1904, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Glena macdunnoughi Sperry, 1952, is hereby designated to be type of that genus. (2) The use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for Monroa Warren, 1904, is hereby refused. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1898) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Frederick H. Rindge in August 1969. Dr. Rindge’s application was sent to the printer on 26 August 1969 and was published on 7 April 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26 : 243-244. 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. The following comment was received from Dr. L. B. Holthuis: “The applica- tion by Dr. Rindge is incomplete and contains some inaccuracies. “(1) The type-species of Monroa is not ‘Cymatophora quinquelinearia Warren (not Packard) 1904’ since such a name does not exist. Unless the Commission makes use of its plenary powers here, the type-species of Monroa is Cymatophora quinquelinearia Packard ... . “Dr. Rindge makes the error of thinking that a generic name is based on the specimens that the author had before him when describing the genus. Actually, however, the genus is based on the type-species, and through that on the type specimen of that species, whether or not that is available to the author of the genus. “(2) The proper citation of the species actually meant by Dr. Rindge here is Cymatophora quinquelinearia sensu Warren, 1904 (not Packard) (see Code, Art. 51(b)). (3) Nowhere in the application is given the date of C. quinquelinearia Packard or Hulstina formosata Hulst; and should the author’s name Hulst not be placed in parentheses ? “(4) As the generic name Monroa falls as a junior synonym of an older name, whichever of the species Cymatophora quinquelinearia Packard or Hulstina formosata Hulst is the type-species, it seems entirely superfluous to invoke the plenary powers here to change the type-species of the genus. “(5) For Hetererannis the same situation pertains as that discussed in para. (1) of this letter. The type-species of that genus is Boarmia obliquaria Grote.... Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6) In the case of Hetererannis there are good arguments for the use of the plenary powers to make Glena macdunnoughi Sperry (not the subspecies) its type.” The contents of Dr. Holthuis’s letter were conveyed to Commissioners at the time of voting. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule, on Voting Paper (72)1 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26 : 244, para. (a) (on Monroa Warren), and on Voting Paper (72)2 either for or against the proposal set out ibid. para. (b) (on Hetererannis Warren). At the close of the prescribed voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: V.P.(72)1. Affirmative votes—six (6), received in the following order: Mayr, Bonnet, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Binder. Negative votes—nine (9) : Holthuis, Simpson, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Melville, Brinck, Forest, Ride. Commissioner Kraus returned a late negative vote and Commissioner Starobogatoy a late affirmative vote. V.P.(72)2. Affirmative votes—fourteen (14): Simpson, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, Tortonese, Brinck, Forest, Binder, Ride. Negative votes—one (1): Holthuis. Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov returned late affirmative votes. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Munroe. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the genera and species con- cerned in the present Ruling: Hetererannis Warren, 1904, Novit. Zool. 11 : 106 macdunnoughi, Glena, Sperry, 1952, Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 51 : 73 Monroa Warren, 1904, Novit. Zool. 11 : 555 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (72)! and 2 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in Voting Paper (72)2 only 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. 991. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 August 1972 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 OPINION 992 GAMMARUS AEQUICAUDA (MARTYNOV, 1931) (CRUSTACEA, AMPHIPODA): VALIDATED 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) plumicornis Costa, 1853, as published in the binomen Gammarus plumicornis; (b) tunetanus Simon, 1885, as published in the binomen Gammarus tunetanus. (2) The specific name aequicauda Martynov, 1931, as published in the binomen Carcinogammarus aequicauda, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2492. (3) The following specific names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) plumicornis Costa, 1853, as published in the binomen Gammarus plumicornis (Name No. 985); (b) tunetanus Simon, 1885, as published in the binomen Gammarus tunetanus (Name No. 986). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1900) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. J. H.Stock in August 1969. Dr. Stock’sapplication wassent to the printer on 18 December 1969 and was published on 5 June 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 49-50. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b: Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184). No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)3 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 49-50. At the close of the pre- scribed voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twelve (12), received in the following order: Holthuis, Eisenmann, Vokes, Jaczewski, Mayr, Bonnet, Melville, Tortonese, Brinck, Forest, Binder, Ride Negative votes—three (3): Simpson, Lemche, Sabrosky. On Leave of Absence—one (1) : Munroe. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado. Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov returned late affirmative votes. Commissioner Simpson commented as follows: “G. aequicauda and G. plumi- cornis have been used for supposedly distinct species and their synonymy (not Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Pavt 1. July 1973. 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature established in any case by data submitted) is a zoological, not a nomenclatural problem. It would therefore be incorrect for the Commission to suppress either one on nomenclatural grounds. The status of G. tunetanus is a separate question and should be so submitted.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: aequicauda, Carcinogammarus, Martynoy, 1931, Zool. Jahrb. (Syst.) 60 (3/4) : 593 plumicornis, Gammarus, Costa, 1853, Rendiconto Soc. R. Borbonica, Acad. Sci (n.s.) 1853 : 176 tunetanus, Gammarus, Simon, 1885, Explor. sci. Tunésie : 6 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)3 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 992. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 August 1972 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 OPINION 993 ECHINOCORYS SCUTATA LESKE, 1778 (ECHINOIDEA): DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the neotype designated by Wind (1959) for the nominal species Echinocorys scutata Leske, 1778, is hereby suppressed, and the specimen described and figured by Peake and Melville (1970) is hereby designated to be the neotype of that species. (2) The generic name Echinocorys Leske, 1778 (gender: feminine), type- species, by designation by Lambert, 1898, Echinocorys scutata Leske, 1778, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1972. (3) The specific name scutata Leske, 1778, as published in the binomen Echinocorys scutatus [sic], as defined under the plenary powers in (1) above (type-species of Echinocorys Leske, 1778) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2493. (4) The generic name Echinocorytes Leske, 1778 (a junior objective synonym of Echinocorys Leske, 1778, through the first reviser action of Peake & Melville, 1970) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2006. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1903) The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr. N. B. Peake and Mr. R. V. Melville in September 1969. The application was sent to the printer on 18 December 1969 and was published on 5 June 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 55-59. 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 palaeontological serials. The application was opposed by Dr. C. W. Sabrosky and supported by Mr. C. W. Wright (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 211) and Dr. R. B. Stokes. Mr. Melville’s reply to Dr. Sabrosky’s criticism was published ibid. : 212. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)4 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 57. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—thirteen (13), received in the following order: Holthuis, Simpson, Lemche, Vokes, Jaczewski, Mayr, Bonnet, Melville, Tortonese, Brinck, Forest, Binder, Ride. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of absence—one (1): Munroe. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado. Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov returned late affirmative votes. Commissioner Sabrosky did not vote. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Echinocorys Leske, 1778, Addit. J. T. Klein nat. Disp. Echin. : 111 (175) Echinocorytes Leske, 1778, Addit. J. T. Klein nat. Disp. Echin. : 111 (175) scutata, Echinocorys, Leske, 1778, Addit. J. T. Klein nat. Disp. Echin. : 111 (175) The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for Echinocorys Leske, 1778 : Lambert, 1898, Bull. Soc. belg. Géol. Paléont., Hydrol. (2) 1 : 179. The following is the original reference for the description of the neotype of Echinocorys scutata Leske, 1778 : Peake & Melville, 1970, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 57, 57-58, pl. 2. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72) 4 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. 993. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 7 September 1972 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 OPINION 994 TATURA BUTLER, [1888] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type-species for the nominal genus Tatura Butler, [1888], are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Hypolycaena lebona Hewitson, [1865], is hereby designated to be type- species of that genus. (2) The generic name Tatura Butler, [1888] (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Hypolycaena lebona Hewitson, [1865], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1973. (3) The specific name /ebona Hewitson, [1865], as published in the binomen Hypolycaena lebona (type-species of Tatura Butler, [1888]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2494 HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1912) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Lt.-Col. C. F. Cowan in December 1969. The application was sent to the printer on 18 December 1969 and was published on 5 June 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 63-64. 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 19 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)6 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 64. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twelve (12), received in the following order: Holthuis, Simpson, Eisenmann, Mayr, Bonnet, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, Tortonese, Forest, Binder, Ride. , Negative votes—three (3): Lemche, Vokes, Ride. On Leave of absence—one (1): Munroe. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado. Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatoy returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners returning negative votes: Prof. H. E. Vokes (28.ii.72): 1 am inclined to agree with Cowan’s para. 7 suggestion that use of the plenary powers is not warranted to save a name that is in jeopardy because of the original author’s carelessness; and especially since it only has ‘possible future subgeneric’ status (para. 6). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Prof. P. Brinck (5.v.72): An affirmative vote would be to confuse a case which is so far quite simple. In my opinion the name should stay where it is: an invalid junior objective synonym. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: lebona, Hypolycaena, Hewitson, [1885], ///. diurn. Lep., Lyc. (2) : 51, pl. 23 Tatura Butler, [1888], Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1887(4) 9 572. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)6 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 994. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 7 September 1972 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 OPINION 995 PSODOS TREITSCHKE, 1825 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): VALIDATION OF EMENDATION FROM PSOIDOS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the emendation to Psodos of the generic name Psoidos Treitschke, 1825, is hereby validated. (2) The generic name Psodos Treitschke, 1825 (gender: feminine), type- species, by designation by Duponchel, 1829, Phalaena equestrata Fabricius, 1777, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1974. (3) The specific name quadrifaria Sulzer, 1776, as published in the binomen Phalaena quadrifaria, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2495. (4) The generic name Psoidos Treitschke, 1825 (Ruled under the plenary powers to be an incorrect original spelling for Psodos) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2007. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 362) The present case was first submitted to the Commission at the International Congress of Zoology in Paris, 1948, by Dr. H. Berthet. Dr. Berthet’s applica- tion was approved at that Congress, but the information furnished to the Com- mission on that occasion was later found to be defective. On these grounds Mr. Hemming, then Secretary to the Commission, decided that no action should be taken to render an Opinion on the case until the matter had been further examined. The case was resubmitted to the orice of the Commission by Lt.-Col. C. F. Cowan in January 1970. This application was sent to the printer on 10 March 1970 and was published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 101-102. 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 other the prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials. The proposals were supported by Mr. D. S. Fletcher, Mr. A. Watson and Dr. I. W. B. Nye and opposed by Dr. George C. Steyskal (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 11). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 19 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)7 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 102. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—thirteen (13), received in the following order: Holthuis, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, Jaczewski, Melville, Tortonese, Brinck, Forest, Binder, Ride. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Negative votes—two (2): Simpson, Sabrosky. On leave of absence—one (1): Munroe. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado. Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov returned late affirmative votes. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes. Prof. G. G. Simpson: Another case of de minimis ... It is ridiculous to waste time on such a detail, and stability and comprehension are not really at stake. As for the learned etymological argument, metathesis of omodvoc to Psoidos is surely at least as likely as to Psodos, and the original and legal form Psoidos is quite likely what was meant all the time. Dr. E. Eisenmann: If it is true that usage for 140 years has been in accord with Treitschke’s 1827 spelling or emendation (which is not denied), I favour the application. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Psodos Treitschke, 1825, in Ochsenheimer, Schmett. von Europa 5 (2) : 434 Psoidos Treitschke, 1825, an incorrect original spelling for Psodos q.v. quadrifaria, Phalaena, Sulzer, 1776, Abgek. Gesch. Ins. Linn. 1 : 162 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for Psodos Treitschke, 1825 : Duponchel, 1829, in Godart, Hist. nat. Lépid. France C3) 2 ile CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)7 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 995. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 September 1972 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 OPINION 996 ACANTHOPLEUROCERAS HYATT, 1900 (CEPHALOPODA, AMMONOIDEA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Ammonites valdani d’Orbigny, 1844, is hereby designated to be the type of that genus; (b) the operation of the Law of Homonymy (Art. 59c) is hereby suspended in the case of Ammonites valdani d’Orbigny, 1844, so that it is not invalidated by the action of Oppel, 1862, in referring Turrilites valdani d’Orbigny, 1843, to the genus Ammonites, and then replacing the junior secondary homonym Ammonites valdani d’Orbigny, 1844, by Ammonites binotatus Oppel, 1862; (c) the specific name natrix Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the binomen Ammonites natrix, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900 (gender: neuter), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Ammonites valdani d’Orbigny, 1844, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1975. (3) The specific name valdani d’Orbigny, 1844, as published in the binomen Ammonites valdani, as defined by the lectotype designated by Getty, 1970, (type-species of Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2496. (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) natrix Schlotheim, 1820, as published in the binomen Ammonites natrix (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c) above) (Name No. 987); (b) binotatus Oppel, 1862, as published in the binomen Ammonites binotatus (a junior objective synonym of Ammonites valdani d’Orbigny, 1844) (Name No. 988). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1909) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. T. A. Getty in November 1969. Dr. Getty’s application was sent to the printer on 10 March 1970 and was published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 105-109. Public Notice of the possible use of 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 palaeontological serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. M. K. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Howarth, who proposed an amendment, Dr. D. T. Donovan, Dr. H. Bremer (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 8-10), Dr. G. Ja. Krymgolts and Dr. Karl Hoffman. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)8, in Part | either for or against the use of the plenary powers to designate a type for Acanthopleuroceras, and in Part 2 for either Alternative A (Dr. Getty’s proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 107-108) or Alternative B (Dr. Howarth’s proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28:9). At the close of the prescribed voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: Part |. Affirmative votes—fifteen (15), received in the following order: Holthuis, Simpson, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, Sabrosky, Melville, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Brinck, Forest, Binder, Ride. Negative votes—none (0). Part 2. For Alternative A—two (2): Bonnet, Brinck: For Alternative B—thirteen (13): Holthuis, Simpson, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Sabrosky, Melville, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Forest, Binder, Ride. On leave of absence—one (1): Munroe. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado. Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov returned late votes in favour of Alternative A. 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: Acanthopleuroceras Hyatt, 1900, in Zittel, Textbook of Palaeontology 1 : 578. binotatus, Ammonites, Oppel, 1862, Paldont. Mitt. 1 : 155 natrix, Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1820, Die Petrefaktenkunde : 162 valdani, Ammonites, d’Orbigny, 1844, Paléont. frang., Terr. jurass. 1 : 255, pl. 71 The following is the original reference for the designation of a lectotype for Ammonites valdani d’Orbigny, 1844 : Getty, 1970, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 107, pl. 3 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)8 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. 996. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 14 September 1972 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 OPINION 997 ANOPLIUS DUFOUR, 1844 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TOGETHER WITH THE DESIGNATION OF NEOTYPES FOR TWO NOMINAL SPECIES RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Anoplius Dufour, 1834, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal species Sphex nigerrimus Scopoli, 1763, is hereby designated to be the type of that genus. (2) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-specimens for the nominal species Sphex nigerrimus Scopoli, 1763, and Sphex niger Fabricius, 1775, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and it is directed that these species be interpreted according to the neotypes described by van der Vecht and Menke, 1968. (3) The generic name Anoplius Dufour, 1834 (gender: masculine), type- species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Sphex nigerrimus Scopoli, 1763, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1976. (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) nigerrimus Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Sphex nigerrimus (type-species of Anoplius Dufour, 1834) (Name No. 2497); (b) niger Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Sphex niger (Name No. 2498). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1845) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.J.van der Vechtand Dr. A. S. Menke in May 1968. Theapplication was sent to the printer on 13 May 1968 and was published on 27 September 1968 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 120-124. 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. Dr. H. Lemche asked that, if the proposals were approved by the Com- mission, the Opinion should make it clear that the neotype specimens were chosen by the applicants and not by the Commission. The wording of the present Ruling met with his approval. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)9 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 122-123. At the close of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prescribed voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—fifteen (15), received in the following order: Holthuis, Simpson, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Bonnet, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, Tortonese, Brinck Forest, Binder, Ride. Negative votes—none (0). On leave of absence—one (1): Munroe. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Alvarado. Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatov 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: Anoplius Dufour, 1834, Annis Soc. ent. Fr. 2 : 484 niger, Sphex, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 350 nigerrimus, Sphex, Scopoli, 1763, Ent. Carn. : 295 The following are the original references for the selection of neotypes for species concerned in the present Ruling: For Sphex niger Fabricius, 1775 : van der Vecht & Menke, 1968, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 122-123 For Sphex nigerrimus Scopoli, 1763 : van der Vecht & Menke, 1968, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 123 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)9 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 997. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 14 September 1972 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 LUMBRICUS TERRESTRIS LINNAEUS, 1758 (ANNELIDA, OLIGOCHAETA) : DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE. PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE SPECIES BY SAVIGNY (1822 & 1826). Z.N.(S.)272 By R. W. Sims (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), London, SW7 5BD.) The name Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, has been widely applied to the earthworm known as the Lob or Dew Worm in Britain, and the Night- crawler in North America, although the original description of the species was imprecise. The name occurs in many university schedules and is familiar to students as that of the common laboratory earthworm which has been described in numerous text-books. The identity of the species has seldom caused con- troversy or difficulty, particularly as Michaelsen (1900 : 511) defined a Lob Worm as Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, in the monograph which is universally accepted as the foundation of modern oligochaete taxonomy. Comparatively recently Tetry (1937), after re-examining material which Savigny had described from the Paris region, regarded terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 as being indeterminate, and followed a few authors who had previously applied the name Lumbricus herculeus (Savigny, 1826) to the Lob Worm. Now Bouché (1970 & 1972) has in turn followed Tetry, and since his later work is mono- graphic, the replacement of the name ferrestris Linnaeus, 1758, could become more widespread. The rejection of this name can lead only to confusion especially as Stiles & Hassall (1903) designated the taxon as the type-species of the genus Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758, which is the type-genus of the well-known family Lumbricidae Claus, 1880. Disagreement over the scientific name that should be applied to the Lob Worm has stemmed from Savigny (1822 and 1826) who twice misidentified material and Tetry (1937) and Bouché (1970) who have not followed general usage and the spirit and the provisions of the Code. The criteria employed in the discussions on the scientific name of the Lob Worm are sometimes highly subjective, and not suprisingly some of the opinions are irreconcilable. It is essential that this disagreement should be resolved in the interests of stability and universality of earthworm nomenclature. The change of name of the earthworm species which is the classical teaching ‘type’ in many countries and whose name appears in most general zoological text-books, can lead only to confusion. Equally serious is the situation which could arise if one small group of workers uses a different name for this familiar species To meet this threat to the nomenclature of the most well-known of all earthworms, a Lob Worm is designated as the neotype of Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (see Appendix) and application is made for these scientific names to be placed on the appropriate lists of Official Names. Savigny (1822) first misidentified material when he erected a new monotypic genus Enterion for Lumbricus terrestris (part) : Linnaeus, 1766, for a series of Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30 ,Part 1. July 1973. 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature earthworms which had come from Egypt. The identity of his specimens is unknown yet Savigny applied the name again (1826) this time to a worm from the Paris region whose identity is known. Since then the name ‘‘Enterion terrestre Savigny, 1826” has been applied to a species of Allolobophora Eisen, 1874, which was recently designated the type-species of Nicodrilus Bouché, 1972. Application is therefore made for Enterion to be placed on the Index of Rejected Names, and for a new type-species to be designated for Nicrodrilus Bouché, 1972, since the binomen Enterion terrestre : Savigny, 1826, was introduced as the result of a misidentification. SURVEY 1. Linnaeus (1758 : 647) described Lumbricus terrestris on external characters which are inadequate for accurately determining the species. He pro- vided the observation “Habitat in Humo; ascendit noctu’’ which has been accepted as indicating a Lob Worm. The synonymy contains references to several worms but few are identifiable and together they refer to more than one species. The synonym “Raj. inf. | Lumbricus major’ undoubtedly refers to a Lob Worm and Ray (1710: 1) referred to it by the alternative vernacular name of Dew Worm, but from the descriptions of other synonyms, e.g. “Raj inf. 2 Lumbricus terrestris minor” and “‘S/oan jam. 2 p.189 Lumbricus terrestris minor rubicundus’’, it is clear that other species are involved. 2. Linnaeus (1766 : 1076), the first reviser, listed Lumbricus terrestris and included the statement “exit supra terram tempore nocturno pro copula” which refers to a particular aspect of the breeding behaviour of the Lob Worm which is different from that of many other species of earthworm, in particular representatives of the genus A/lolobophora Eisen, 1874. 3. Miiller (1774 : 24) listed the length and position of the clitellum and the number of body segments of three specimens which he examined when he restricted Lumbricus terrestris. By modern taxonomic standards the three worms would be considered to belong to different species. The characters of the first worm listed indicate that the specimen was immature so it cannot be iden- tified with certainty. The second worm may have been a representative of a species of Dendrobaena Eisen, 1874 (or possibly of Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758, or of Octolasion Orley, 1885 but certainly not of the genus A/lolobophora Eisen, 1874), but the third is identifiable as a Lob Worm. 4. Savigny (1822* : 100) described the genus Enterion with Lumbricus terrestris (part): Linnaeus, 1766 : 1076 as the single included species for a series of earthworms from Egypt (p. 103). The description of the species is inadequate for it to be recognised but sufficient for any Swedish earthworm to be excluded. The type-species of Enterion (by monotypy) was clearly misidentified and the provisions of Article 70 apply. *Sherborn (1897 : 287) concluded that the date of publication was 1822. Sherborn’s paper has generally been overlooked and the date of the first description of Enterion is usually cited as 1820. Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 5. Savigny (1826 : 180) reported on a collection of earthworms from the Paris region and listed, among other species, Enterion herculeum and Enterion terrestre without attributing authorship to the names or indicating whether either was a species nova. Each brief diagnosis constituted a valid indication under Article 16 and as the specimens have survived, there is no doubt of the identities of the taxa. The new name Enterion herculeum was given to a Lob Worm while Enterion terrestre was given to an earthworm until recently usually regarded as a species of the genus Allolobophora Eisen, 1874 : 45, but now designated the type-species of Nicodrilus Bouché, 1972: 315. Savigny has been the only author to use the name Enterion. 6. ‘Oligochaeta’, Lf. 10 of Das Tierreich by Michaelsen was published in 1900. In this work each valid species is provided with a full synonymy; on page 511 the synonymy of Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, contains the name Enterion herculeum Savigny, 1826, while on page 483 the synonymy of Helodrilus (Allolobophora) longa (Ude, 1855) contains the citation ‘1826, Enterion terrestre (err. non Savigny 1820!), Savigny.”” Michaelsen recognized that Savigny had misidentified his specimens and in doing so had misapplied the name terrestris Linnaeus, 1758. This interpretation has been widely accepted. 7. Stiles and Hassall (1903 : 118) designated terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, as the type-species of the genus Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 75). (The only other originally included species in the genus Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758, was marinus Linnaeus, 1758, which is the type-species of the genus Arenicola Lamarck, 1801 : 324, by monotypy.) 8. Tetry (1937 : 151) re-examined the material and reported on the iden- tities of the specimens which Savigny (1826) had briefly described from the Paris region. She applied the names Lumbricus herculeus (Savigny, 1826) to the Lob Worm and Allolobophora terrestris (Savigny, 1826) to a species allied to Allolobophora longa Ude, 1885 : 136. 9. Graff (1953 : 324) gave taxonomic reasons for accepting that Miiller (1774), Michaelsen (1900) and other authors had correctly identified Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758. 10. Bouché (1970 : 541) argued that Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 should be regarded as being indeterminate and that the name ferrestris was not available. He concluded (in the English Summary) “in favour of the priority of the name [Lumbricus herculeus] Savigny [1826] but advises to use simul- taneously the note: Lumbricus terrestris L., em. Michaelsen, 1900, which is not a priority name...”. The provisions of the Code were not considered in his discussion but “arguments pratiques’” were employed. 11. (a) Bouché (1972 : 352) named the Lob Worm “Lumbricus herculeus (Savigny, 1826) Syn. L. terrestris: Linné, 1758, em. Michaelsen, 1900” in a comprehensive monograph on the ecology and systematics of the earthworms of France. (b) Bouché (1972 : 315) described the new genus Nicodrilus and designated “N. terrestris (Savigny, 1826)”, i.e. Enterion terrestre (Linnaeus) Savigny, 1826, as the type-species. The first available name in the synonymy containing 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature E. terrestre: Savigny, 1826, is Allolobophora giardi Ribaucourt, 1901 : 224, (M. B. Bouché, personal communication, 8 November, 1972.) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is invited: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for Nicodrilus Bouché, 1972, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Allolobophora giardi Ribaucourt, 1901, to be the type- species of the genus: (2) to make the following entry in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 213 (in confirmation of Opinion 75): Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758 (: 647) (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Stiles & Hassall, 1903 (: 118), Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758; (3) to place the generic name Nicodrilus Bouché, 1972 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Allolobophora giardi Ribaucourt, 1901, 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: F (a) terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (: 647), as published in ie binomen Lumbricus terrestris, as interpreted by the neotype designated herein (type- species of Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758); (b) giardi Ribaucourt, 1901, as published in the binomen Allolobophora giardi (type-species of Nicodrilus Bouché, 1972); (5) to place the family name LUMBRICIDAE Claus, 1880 (: 478) type-genus Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (6) to place the generic name Enterion Savigny, 1822 (: 100) (a junior objective synonym of Lumbricus Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BoucnE, M. B. 1970. Observations sur les lombricidés (3 eme série: VII, VIII, LX). Rev. Ecol. Biol. Sol, 7 : 533-547 ‘ Boucue, M. B. 1972. Lombriciens de France: Ecologie et Systématique. Annls. Zool. Ecol. anim. Paris, (INRA), 72(2) : 1-671 Ciaus, C. 1880. Grundziige der Zoologie, (4th ed.) 1 : 821. Marburg, Elwert’sche Verlag. Eisen, G. 1874. Bidrag till Kannedomen om New Englands och Canadas Lumbri- cider. Ofvers. K. Vetensk Akad. Foérh. Stockh. 30(2) : 41-49 Grarr, O. 1953. Zur Berechtigung des Artnamens Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758. Zool. Anz. 151 : 324-326 LaMARCK, J. B. 1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertébres. 1-432. Paris, Deterville Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, (10th ed.) 1 : 1-824. Holmiae, Salvi Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, (12th ed.) 1: 1-1364. Holmiae, Salvi MICHAELSEN, W. 1900. Oligochaeta. Das Tierreich, 10 : 1-575 MUuier,O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium, seu animalium infusoriorum, helminthicorum, et testaceorum, non marinorum, succincta historia. 1 (Alt.) : A, 1-72. Havniae et Lipsiae, Heineck et Faber. Ortey, L. 1885. A palaearktikus 6vben él6 terrikolAknak revisidja és elterjedése. Ertek. Term-Tud. Kérebdl. 15 (18) : 1-34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 Ray, J. 1710. Historia Insectorum, 1-400. London, Churchill Ripaucourt, E. DE. 1901. Etude sur l’anatomie comparée des lombricidés. Bull. scient. Fr. Belg. 35 : 21-312 Savicny, J. C. 1822. Systeme des Annélides, principalement de celles des cdtes de l’Egypte et de la Syrie . . .Descr. Egypte, (Hist. nat.) 1(3) : 3-128 Savicny, J.C. 1826. (in) Zoologie, Mem. Acad. Sci. Inst. Fr. (Hist.) 5 : 176-184 SHERBORN, C.D. On the dates of the natural history portion of Savigny’s ‘Description de I’Egypte’. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1897 : 285-288 Stites, C. W. & HassaLt, A. 1903. The determination of generic types and a list of roundworm genera with their original and type species. Bull. Bur. Anim. Ind. U.S. Dep. Agric. T9 : 1-150 Tetry, A. 1937. Reévision des lombriciens de la collection de Savigny. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. nat. Paris, 9 : 140-155 Ube, H. 1885. Uber die Riickenporen der terricolen Oligochaeten, nebst Beitragen zur Histologie des Leibesschlauches und zur Systematik der Lumbriciden. Z. wiss. Zool. 43 : 87-143 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature APPENDIX DESIGNATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE NEOTYPE OF LUMBRICUS TERRESTRIS LINNAEUS, 1758 (ANNELIDA, OLIGOCHAETA). NEeEoTYPE. Clitellate specimen. Lawn close to the Botanical Garden, Uppsala, Sweden. 13 Oct. 1972. Collectors: B. Axelsson, U. Lohm, T. Persson. British Museum (Natural History) Register No. 1973.1.1. DescriPTION. External characters Length 165 mm, maximum diameter 9 mm (not fully relaxed) Segments 153, biannulate but the hinder annulus in each of segments /-iv is faintly subdivided and the dorsal surface is weakly tri- annulate. Body shape mainly cylindrical anteriorly with a flattened ventral surface, more depressed in the post-clitellar region especially the terminal portion which being flatter and broader is paddle-shaped. Cuticle with a bluish green iridescence; body wall heavily pigmented dorsally (specimen fixed in dilute formalin and preserved in 80% alcohol: vinous brown above and straw colour below, clitellum fleshy straw colour). Prostomium tanylobous with a transverse groove at the level of the anterior surface of the peristomium. First dorsal pore 7/8. Clitellum xxxii-xxxvii, saddle-shaped extending ventrally to setal line 5; tubercula pubertatis single pair of low longitudinal ridges xxxiii-xxxvi laterally to setal line b. Setae 8 per segment, closely paired in four double longitudinal rows along the body. Setal formula aa : ab : be : cd, mainly 5: 1:5: 4: 1 where dd=0-5 circumference but at the body extremities the setae are slightly larger and more widely paired, the formula at cx/ being 4: 1.3: 2:1. On -xxvi ab are modified as genital setae on (paired) low broad tumescences, on xxv ab are also slightly modified. Lateral setae (cd) not seen in the clitellar region. Male pores paired transverse slits xv within bc having large elevated glandular lips, the anterior lips encroach onto xiv and the posterior lips onto xvi. Female pores small, paired xiv within bc,4ab from b. Spermathecal pores paired, inconspicuous in furrows 9/10 and 10/11 in setal line b. Internal characters. First septum 4/5, septa 6/7-9/10 and 20/21-22/23 strongly thickened. First three septa conical. A large pharynx leads into a slender oesophagus which is specialized in x-xiii with paired pouched calciferous glands in x and enlarged paired chambers in both xi and xii. Intestine begins in xiv swelling in xv and xvi to form a crop which leads into a muscular gizzard in xvii-xix. The intestinal wall in xx-xxx is constricted segmentally to form a series of chambers which become less distinct towards the anterior end of the clitellar region. The typhlosole extends mid-dorsally along the internal wall of the intestine between xxi and cxviii, in the pre-clitellar region its surface is highly convoluted. Testes holandric, each pair of testes together with a pair of sperm funnels is contained within a single ventral testes sac in x and xi respectively. Seminal vesicles 3 pairs, those in 7x and xi communicate with the anterior testes sac and those in xii with the posterior testes sac. Paired vasa efferentia lead from the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 funnels in each testes sac, the anterior pair unite with the posterior pair to form a pair of vasa deferentia which pass along the ventral parietes to xv. Ovaries paired xiii, small, pendent from the posterior surface of septum 12/13 above the ventral parietes on each side of the major vessels; a pair of short, funnelled oviducts lead back from xiii to the exterior of xiv. Spermathecae paired ix,x; each is globular to bean-shaped with a short duct which passes into the ventral parietes by the hinder septum of the segment. Excretory system holonephridial. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am grateful to Dr. B. Axelsson, Dr. U. Lohm and Dr. T. Persson, Depart- ment of Entomology, University of Uppsala, for their kindness and co- operation in responding to my request for assistance by specially collecting the series of earthworms from which the neotype was subsequently selected and for presenting the specimens to the British Museum (Natural History). NOTE In accordance with Recommendation 75A, specialists were consulted and the following agree that it is desirable to designate a neotype of Lumbricus terrestris L., 1758: Dr. M. B. Bouché, I.N.R.A., Dijon; Dr. G. E. Gates, 251, Silver Road, Bangor, Maine; Dr. O. Graff, Institut fur Bodenbiologie, Braun- schweig; Dr. B. G. M. Jamieson, University of Queensland, Brisbane; Dr. J. D. Plisko, Institut zoologiczny PAN, Warszawa; Dr. S. Rundgren, Lunds Uni- versitet, Lund; Dr. J. E. Satchell, Merlewood Research Station, Lancashire; Dr. C. Stop-Bowitz, Universitetet I Oslo, Oslo; Dr. D. E. Wilcke, Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universitat, Bonn; Dr. I. Zajonc, Vysokej skoly polno- hospodarskej, Nitra; Dr. A. Zicsi, Institutum Zoosystematicum Universitatis, Budapest. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MEMORANDUM ON THE SPECIES NAME LUMBRICUS TERRESTRIS By G. E. Gates (251 Silver Road, Bangor, Maine, U.S.A.) Usage of L. herculeus for L. terrestris by certain French authors long bothered me and especially after the name of L. terrestris was removed from the list of nomina conservanda. About fifteen or so years ago I corresponded with a Swedish zoologist who, I thought, would collect what is commonly known as the night crawler, dew worm, etc. from the place where Linnaeus lived and might have made his observations (to be mentioned later), with the idea that the specimens would be properly preserved for deposition in some Swedish museum to serve as types. Years went by and nothing further was heard of the project from Sweden and after advancing age denied me further use of museum quarters, the file containing the correspondence was lost or discarded and I cannot even recall the name of the correspondent. Lumbricus terrestris obviously must be retained as the type of Lumbricus if that generic name is to be retained. Objections by French authors to retention of terrestris is that no species is identifiable by the Linnean characterization of the species in 1758. Briefly, that view is incorrect. The definition of that year mentions “adscendit noctu’’. The only Swedish earthworm that is known to come regularly to the surface in night time, as a normal procedure and whenever climate permits, is the same one known all over North America, Asia, and everywhere in Europe today except in France as well as in much of Africa, as L. terrestris. Allolobophora longa has been said to come to the surface but it never has been shown to do so regularly and normally. Hundreds of thousands certainly, if not millions, of earthworms have been collected in North America. They have been ‘‘jacked” at night by people who know nothing about earth- worm systematics. They do know that the worms they find feeding and copulating on the surface are night crawlers, obtainable only at night, and that they can sell the worms to organizations that supply specimens alive to anglers and experimenters or after preservation to universities, colleges and high schools for dissection. A. longa is present on this continent as also in Sweden, but never has been present in any of the many hundreds of specimens “‘jacked” at night that I have personally examined and that were examined for me by others. In the 12th edition of the System (1767, p. 1077) an emended definition contains a more definite statement. exit supra terram tempore nocturno pro copula”’. To this day, no other earthworm species that is present in Sweden has been found to come to the surface to copulate. In fact, I do not know of any other European species that has been shown to do so. I have dug copulating earthworms (even including some that are male sterile) out of the soil, manure, compost, etc., but they always were of other species, never of L. terrestris. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 REQUEST THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION RULE TO CORRECT HOMONYMY IN THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME DREPANIDAE, CURRENTLY IN USE IN INSECTA AND PISCES Z. N. (S.) 1958 By C. G. Gruchy (Ichthyology Unit, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada) When homonyms between family-group names result from similarity, but not identity, of genus-group names, the case is to be referred to the Commis- sion (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1964, Art. 55(a)). Such a case exists between the family-group name DREPANIDAE, in current use in Insecta (Lepidoptera) and in Pisces (Perciformes). The case is simplified somewhat by the fact that the family-group name DREPANIDAE as it applies to Insecta (Lepidoptera) is on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Several other family-group names, similar to DREPANIDAE, have also been ruled upon by the Commission. The facts of the case are as follows: 1. In Opinion 610 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18(4) : 267 (1961)) the family- group name DREPANIDAE (correction of DREPANIDULID!) Boisduval [Nov., 1828] (type genus Drepana Schrank, 1802 (Name No. 1442, Official List of Generic Names in Zoology)) (Insecta, Lepidoptera) was placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (Name No. 307). 2. In Opinion 610 the family-group name DREPANIDIDAE Gadow, 1891 (type genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820 (Name No. 1440, Official List of Generic Names in Zoology)) (Aves) was placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (Name No. 306). 3. In Opinion 610 the following family-group name, among others, was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: DREPANIDAE Mayr, 1943 (type genus Drepanis Temminck, 1820) (Name No. 337). 4. Drepane Cuvier, 1831 (in : Cuvier, G., and A. Valenciennes, 1831, Hist. Nat. Poissons 7 : 132) (Pisces, Perciformes) is the type-genus of the family- group taxon DREPANIDAE Gill, 1872, in : Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 1874, 11, (247) : 8. The type-species of Drepane Cuvier is Chaetodon punctatus Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation by Jordan, 1917, Genera Fishes 1 : 136. 5. Several authors subsequent to Cuvier (in : Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1831) were of the opinion that Drepane Cuvier, 1831, was a homonym of Drepana Schrank, 1802, and proposed substitute names as follows: Drepanichthys Bonaparte, 1831 (Saggio d’una distribuzione metodica degli Animali Vertebrati . . . Giorn. arcad. sienze, lettre ed arti 52 : 172; Enixe Gistel, 1848 (Naturg. Thierr. hohere Schulen : X)}- Harpochirus Cantor, 1849 (Catalogue Malayan Fishes, J. Roy. Asiat. Soc., Bengal 18 : 1144. However, if a difference between genus-group names is due to a single 1Original reference unavailable, information from Jordan, 1917, Genera Fishes, Il : 233-234 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature letter, those names are not homonyms (Art. 57(d)). Thus Drepana Schrank, 1802, and Drepane Cuvier, 1831, are not homonyms, and the three above- mentioned names proposed as substitutes for Drepane Cuvier, 1831, are junior objective synonyms of that name. 6. Cope, 1869 (Supplement on some new species of American and African fishes, Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. 9 : 401) described from ‘““West African Seas’’, a new genus and species, Cryptosmilia luna, apparently based on specimens of Drepana punctata (Linn.). Neither Fowler (1936, Marine Fishes West Africa, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 70 : 899) nor Poll (1954, Expéd. Océan. Belge Eaux Cétiéres Africaines Atlantique Sud 4, Fasc. 3A : 372) has considered C. luna valid, and my own observations of limited material of this family from West Africa suggest that C. Juna is conspecific with D. punctata. Therefore Cryptosmilia Cope, 1869 is herein viewed as a junior subjective synonym of Drepane Cuvier, 1831. 7. Drepane, as used by Cuvier, 1831, is an exact transliteration, but an incorrect latinization of the Greek dpemévn a sickle (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1964, Appendix 8) while Drepana, as used by Schrank, 1802, is a correct latinization. However, according to Article 32(a)ii (Interna- tional Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1964) the original spelling is to be retained despite improper latinization. In view of the facts set out above, I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to: (1) rule under its plenary powers that the stem of the genus-group name Drepane Cuvier, 1831 for the purposes of Article 29 is DREPANE-; (2) place the generic name Drepane Cuvier, 1831 (gender feminine) type- species by subsequent designation by Jordan, 1917, Chaetodon punc- tatus Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Systema Naturae Ed. X, 1: 273) as published in the binomen Chaetodon punctatus (type-species of Drepane Cuvier, 1831) 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) Drepanichthys Bonaparte, 1831, a junior objective synonym of Drepane Cuvier, 1831; (b) Enixe Gistel, 1848, a junior objective synonym of Drepane Cuvier, 1831; (c) Harpochirus Cantor, 1849, a junior objective synonmy of Drepane Cuvier ; (5) place the following name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: DREPANEIDAE Gill, 1874 (emendation under the plenary powers of DREPANIDAE), type-genus Drepane Cuvier, 1831; (6) place the following name on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: DREPANIDAE Gill, 1874 (an incorrect original spelling for DREPANIDAE as a consequence of the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 NIPPONAPHERA HABE, 1961 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2007 By H. A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 1. At the suggestion of Mr. Richard E. Petit of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, U.S.A., I submit this application to set aside the original type designation of Nipponaphera Habe, 1961. 2. Habe (196la, App. p. 27) proposed the genus Nipponaphera, citing Nipponaphera lyrata (Adams & Reeve, 1850) as type; the diagnosis, discussion and type designation are in Japanese. On p. 72, and plate 35, figure 18 of the main part of the same work the type-species is listed and figured, and on page 73 and plate 36, figures 4 and 8, two other species are listed and figured: N. teramachii n. sp. and N. semipellucida (Adams & Reeve). On page 27 of the Appendix the species teramachii is placed in Trigonaphera, leaving only two species in his new genus Nipponaphera. 3. Later in 1961 Habe (1961b, p. 435) identified the type-species as N. funiculata (Hinds), making Cancellaria lyrata Ad. & Rve. a junior synonym. As early as 1885 Tryon (1885, p. 83) considered Cancellaria lyrata Ad. & Rve., described as coming from the China Seas (Adams & Reeve, 1850, p. 42, pl. 10, fig. 4), to be a synonym of C. funiculata Hinds (1843, p. 48; 1844, p. 43, pl. 12, figs. 5-6) from Magdalena Bay, Baja, California, Mexico. Keen figures Trigonostoma funiculatum (Hinds) in her book on tropical West American mollusks, in the first edition (Keen, 1958, p. 442, fig. 709), expressing the belief that the locality might be in error. Following Shasky’s confirmation of the presence of this species in the Gulf of California (Shasky, 1961, p. 19), Keen, in the new edition of her book (Keen, 1971, p. 656, fig. 1482), lists it as Trigonostoma (Olssonella) funiculatum Hinds without question, following Petit’s classification (Petit 1970, p. 84). 4. Thus Cancellaria funiculata appears to be a West American species, and have as junior synonym C. /yrata Adams & Reeve, whose type locality, “China Seas” is erroneous. This species has been assigned to the genus Olssonella Petit, 1970 (Petit, 1.c.). 5. The species that Habe described and figured as Nipponaphera lyrata (Adams & Reeve) and later called N. funiculata (Hinds) is not the same as the West American species, and has been renamed N. habei Petit, 1972 (Petit, 1972, p. 103). 6. As Petit has pointed out (Petit, 1972, p. 104), if the present type designa- tion is allowed to stand Nipponaphera would replace Olssonella Petit, 1970, for an American group of cancellarids, and the Japanese group would require a new name. 7. In order to retain the name Nipponaphera Habe for the largely Japanese group, and conforming to Article 70 (a) (i), I suggest that the nominal species actually designated as the type-species, wrongly named by Habe Nipponaphera Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature lyrata (Adams & Reeve), and renamed Nipponaphera habei Petit, 1972, be selected as the type-species of Nipponaphera Habe. 8. In order to achieve this the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species made prior to the present Ruling for the genus Nipponaphera Habe, 1961, and having done so to designate Nipponaphera habei Petit (=N. lyrata Habe, 1961, not Cancellaria lyrata Adams & Reeve, 1850) as type-species of Nipponaphera; (2) to place the generic name Nipponaphera Habe, 1961 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Nipponaphera habei Petit, 1972, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name habei Petit, 1972, as published in the binomen Nipponaphera habei (type-species of Nipponaphera Habe, 1961) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Apams, A., and REEVE, L. 1850. Mollusca, in The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Samarang. London : i-x + 1-87, 24 pl. Hase, T. 196la. Coloured Illustrations of the Shells of Japan, 2. Osaka : i-x + 1-183, App. 1-42, 66 pl. — 1961b. Description of Four New Cancellariid Species, with A List of the Japanese Species of the Family Cancellariidae. Venus 21 : 431-441, pls. 23, 24 Hinps, R. B. 1843. Ten new species of Cancellaria from the collection of Sir Edward Belcher. Proc. Soc. London 11 : 47-49 — 1844. The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Sulphur, etc. 2, Mollusca. London : 1-72, 21 pls. Keen, A. M. 1958. Sea Shells of Tropical West America. Stanford : i-viii + 1-624, illustr. — 1971. Sea Shells of Tropical West America. Second Edition. Stanford : i-xiv + 1-1064, illustr. Petit, R. E. 1970. Notes on Cancellariidae (Mollusca : Gastropoda)—II. Tulane Studies Geol. Paleont. 8 : 83-88, pl. 1 — 1972. The cancellariid genus Nipponaphera Habe, 1961 Venus 31: 103-105 SHasky, D. R. 1961. New Deep Water Mollusks from the Gulf of California. The Veliger 4 : 18-21, pl. 4 Tryon, G. W. 1885. Manual of Conchology 7, Family Cancellariidae. Phila- delphia : 65-98, pl. 1-7 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 MACGILLIVRAYA GROTE, 1894 (INSECTA, COLLEMBOLA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.AS.) 2008 By Willem N. Ellis (/nstituut voor Taxonomische Zodlogie, het Zodlogisch Museum, University of Amsterdam) and Peter F. Bellinger (Biology Department, San Fernando Valley State College, Northridge, California) The nominal genus Macgillivraya was created by Grote, 1894, as a new name for Triaena Tullberg, 1871, nec Hiibner, 1818. Von Dalla Torre considered Macgillivraya Grote as a homonym of a genus of Mollusca, described by Forbes in 1852, and replaced it by Friesea in 1895. The validity of the well-known generic name Friesea is threatened now by considerable doubt concerning the homonymy of Macgillivraya. 2. Inthe fifth appendix of the second volume of the Narrative of the Voyage of the Rattlesnake Forbes amply described the new genus Macgillivrayia; this spelling is repeated on page 386 in the explanation of the accompanying plate. The two volumes of the Narrative are dated 1852; the volumes in the library of the Teyler’s Stichting in Haarlem both bear an autogram “‘John Gray 1852”. 3. The genus is also briefly discussed in the Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science of 1852, but this time the spelling Macgillivraya is used. The few lines of this note, which we reproduce below, are so vague that it seems very questionable that they can be seen as a formal description: “Among the collections made by Mr. Macgillivray is a new genus of Gastero- podous Mollusks, floaters in the manner of Janthina, but having close affinities of shell, animal and operculum with Jeffreysia. It appears to throw new light on the nature of Macluria and the so-called Palaeozoic Littorinae. Prof. Forbes proposes to name this curious shell Macgillivraya’’. Dr. Willis, secretary of the British Association, kindly informed us that this report was published in 1852 indeed. (Some confusion exists in literature on this point, e.g. in the paper of Troschel, 1852, because the note of Forbes was read July 1851). 4. Consequently, the spelling Macgillivraya Forbes has no status in nomenclature, unless the note in the Report of the British Association amounts to a description (which is questionable), and unless at the same time this publi- cation takes precedence over the Narrative of the Rattlesnake Voyage (which we could not prove or disprove). We do not know of a first reviser who accepted one of either spellings as the correct name, nor do we know of a deliberate emendation, made prior to 1894 giving status to the name Macgilli- vraya. (The statement in the Nomenclator of Schulze, Kiikenthal and Heider, 1932 (3 : 1929) that such an emendation was made by de Marschall, 1873 in his Nomenclator is incorrect). The new genus of Forbes originally attracted considerable attention because it was interpreted as a representative of a distinct group of Mollusca (Petit de la Saussaye, 1853, Macdonald, 1855, 1856, Adams, 1857), and Adams & Adams even erected the family MACGILLIVRAYIIDAE to Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature receive this and some related genera, in 1854. However, it was soon realized that this genus represents a group of larval forms of uncertain position (probably near Tonna), and the genus name disappeared from malacological practice (Fischer, 1884). Until now both spellings are in use, whenever the genus is referred to (e.g. Allan, 1959, Treatise on invertebrate palaeontology, 1960). 5. Theconclusionis, that in all probability Macgillivraya Forbes has nostatus in nomenclature, with the result that Macgillivraya Grote is not preoccupied. This implies that the well-known cosmopolitan genus Friesea, which contains approximately 70 species-group taxa and is the type genus of the subfamily FRIESEINAE Massoud, 1967, would have to be renamed. Macgillivraya Grote has remained unchallenged for only one year, and has virtually never been used as a valid name. Since reintroduction of this name evidently is not in the interest of a stable nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the nominal genus Macgillivraya Grote, 1894; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the names Macgillivraya Grote, 1894 (suppressed under (1) above) and Triaena Tullberg, 1871 (a junior honomym of Triaena Hiibner, 1818); (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Friesea yon Dalla Torre, 1895, type-species by monotypy, through Triaena, Triaena mirabilis Tullberg, 1871 (gender: feminine); (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name mirabilis Tullberg, 1871, as published in the combination Triaena mirabilis (type-species of Friesea von Dalla Torre, 1895). REFERENCES Apams, A. 1857. Ona new species of Macgillivrayia. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 19 : 373-374 — 1857. Description of two new species of Heteropodous Mollusca. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 19 : 461-463 Apams, H., and ApaAms, A. 1853-1858. The genera of recent Mollusca; arranged according to their organization. 1-3 London ALLAN, J. 1959. Australian shells, with related animals living in the seas, in freshwater and on the land. 2nd ed. Melbourne DALLA Torre, K. W. von 1895. Die Gattungen und Arten der Apterygogenea (Brauer). Programm k.k. Staats-Gymnasium Innsbruck 46 : 1-23 FiscHer, P. 1884. Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paléontologie conchyliologique. Paris Fores, E. 1852. On the Mollusca collected by Mr. Macgillivray during the voyage of the Rattlesnake. In: J. Macgillivray, Narrative of the Voyage of H.M.S. Rattlesnake, commanded by Captain Owen Stanley, R.N., F.R.S. during the years 1846-1850. 2, Appendix 5 : 360-386, PI. 1 —— 1852. Onanew testacean discovered during the voyage of H.M.S. Rattlesnake. Rep. Br. Ass. Advmt Sci. 21, Notices and Abstracts : 77 Grote, A. R. 1894. On Triaena. Can. Ent. 26 (2) : 54 Hupner, J. 1818. Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge... Erstes Hundert : 21 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 MACDONALD, J. D. 1855. Remarks on the anatomy of Macgillivrayia pelagica and Cheletropis Huxleyi (Forbes); suggesting the establishment of a new genus of Gasteropoda. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 145 : 284-293, Pl. 16. Reprinted slightly condensed in: Proc. R. Soc. 7 : 191-194; Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 15 : 232-234 — 1855. Further observations on the anatomy of Macgillivraya, Cheletropis, and allied genera of pelagic Gasteropoda. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 145 : 295-297, Pl. 17. Reprinted slightly condensed in : Proc. R. Soc. 7 : 309-311; Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 15 : 359-361 MarscuHAaLL, A. de 1873. Nomenclator zoologicus... Wien (Petit DE LA Saussaye, S.] (S.P.). 1853. Notice sur le genre Macgillivrayia de E. Forbes. J. Conch. Paris 4 : 316 SaLmon, J.T. 1964-1965. An index to the Collembola. Bull. R. Soc. N.Z. 7 (1): 1-144; 7 (2) : 145-644; 7 (3) : 645-651 ScHULZE, F. E., KUKENTHAL, W., and Heiwer, K. 1932. Nomenclator animalium generum et subgenerum. 3. Berlin TREATISE ON INVERTEBRATE PALAEONTOLOGY (R. C. Moore ed.). 1960. Part I. Mollusca 1. Kansas TrOscHEL, F.H. 1852. Bericht iiber die Leistungen im Gebiete der Naturgeschichte der Mollusken wahrend des Jahres 1851. Arch. Naturgesch. 18 (2) : 257-307 (Macgillivraya on p. 280) ne TULLBERG, T. 1871. Fortecking ofver Svenska Podurider. Ofvers. K. Vetensk Akad. Forh. Stockh. 28 (1) : 143-155 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature HAEMATOPINUS EURYSTERNUS (DENNY, 1842) (HAEMATOPINIDAE, ANOPLURA, INSECTA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS.1 Z.N.(S.) 2009 By Ke Chung Kim and Christian F. Weisser? (The Frost Entomological Museum, Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa. 16802, U.S.A.) 1. The objective of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to preserve the well known names Haematopinus eurysternus (Nitzsch, 1818) (Haemato- pinidae) and Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein, 1904 (Linognathidae) by sup- pressing Burmeister’s brief description and the material of Nitzsch, and validat- ing H. eurysternus (short-nosed cattle louse) in the sense of Denny (1842, Monographia Anoplurorum Britanniae, pp. 29-30, Plate 24, Fig. 5) and authors, nec Nitzsch (1818 and 1864). The facts of this case became apparent while engaged in revisional studies of Haematopinidae and Linognathidae. These facts are set out below. 2. Nitzsch (1818, Magazin der Entomologie, von E. F. Germar, Halle, Germany 3 : 305) mentioned a louse from “Bovis Tauri” under the name Pediculus eurysternus without description and figures. A note to this species was published posthumously in 1864, and this note showed very clearly that Pediculus eurysternus Nitzsch (1818) was meant to be the little blue cattle louse, presently known as Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein (1904). Nitzsch states (1864, Zeitschr. fiir die gesamten Naturwissenschaften 23 : 27-28) that: “‘... eine Kuh besass eine ganz eigentiimliche Laus, welche bei fliichtiger Vergleichung der Hirschlaus nah verwandt scheint.”’; (translation: “....a cow harboured a rather strange louse which seems on the first glance to be closely related to the louse of the red deer.’’). It is true that Solenopotes capillatus from cattle resembles Solenopotes burmeisteri (Fahrenholz, 1819) from the European red deer in general appearance. However, P. eurysternus Nitzsch (1818) is a nomen nudum. 3. Through the courtesy of Prof. Dr. Hiising, Martin-Luther-Universitat in Halle-Wittenberg, Germany, the original material apparently used by Nitzsch was available to us for study. The 3 females and 3 nymphs were found in the bottle bearing a handwritten label apparently by Giebel. They were completely dried out but still in fairly good condition. Three females and 2 nymphs were unmistakably Haematopinus eurysternus (Nitzsch) (nec Denny, 1842) (=Soleno- potes capillatus Enderlein). One nymph was apparently Linognathus vituli (Linnaeus, 1758). 1 Authorized for publication as paper no. 4206, Journal Series of the Agricultural Experiment Station, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa. 16802, U.S.A. We are indebted to Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky, Systematic Entomology Laboratory, ARS, U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. for reading the manuscript with invaluable suggestions. 2 Permanent Address: Zoologisches Institut, Universitat Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 4. Stephens (1829, Systematic Catalogue of British Insects 2 : 239) listed Haematopinus eurysternus as “9325. 5 eurysternus. (Germ. M. (Nitz.) iii. 305). 5. Burmeister (1838, Genera quaedam Insectorum 1 (4) : Pediculus, No. 14) listed P. eurysternus as “14 P. eurysternus: capite cum thorace latissimo pedi- busque testaceo, abdomine albo; spiraculis in segmentorum margine prominen- tibus. Long. 2/3’. An Ped. Vitul. Linn.? Habit. in Bove tauro.” He recognized the work of Nitzsch (1818) and referred P. eurysternus to the little blue cattle louse, presently known as Solenopotes capillatus. According to the Code (Article 12), Pediculus eurysternus Nitzsch (1818) is obviously a nomen nudum, and Burmeister’s work must be considered the first description of this species. Thus, the author of Pediculus eurysternus should be Burmeister (1838) not Nitzsch (1818, 1864). According to the strict application of the Code the name Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein (1904, Zool. Anz. 28 (4) : 143-144) should become a junior synonym of Haematopinus eurysternus (Burmeister, 1838). 6. Denny (1842, Monographia Anoplurorum Britanniae p. 29-30, Plate 25, Fig. 5) described and illustrated a “Louse of the Ox” under the name Haema- topinus eurysternus. He states that: “*... abdomen... with four longitudinal rows of fuscous horny excrescences, the lateral ones surrounding the spiracula...”” Although works of Stephens, Nitzsch, and Burmeister were cited, the louse that Denny described was in fact the species known today as Haematopinus eury- sternus. Thus, Denny was the first author who used the name Haematopinus eurysternus for the short-nosed cattle louse. 7. Gurlt (1843, Magazin fiir die gesamte Tierheilkunde 9 (1) : 10) described and illustrated Haematopinus eurysternus sensu Denny, but attributed the authorship of this species to Nitzsch (1818). 8. Giebel (1874, Insecta Epizoa: 41-42, pl. 2, fig. 8) apparently had access to Nitzsch’s original material, notes, and illustrations. In “Insecta Epizoa, Die auf Saugetieren und Végeln schmarotzenden Insekten, nach Christian L. Nitzsch’s Nachlass,’’ Giebel described and illustrated Haematopinus euryster- nus (Nitzsch) sensu Nitzsch (1818), which was subsequently described as Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein, 1904. Giebel stated that ‘““Die Baine nehmen vom ersten bis zum dritten Paare an Dicke zu, doch nicht im Grade wie bei der Hirschlaus... Der Hinterleib ist bei den Weibchen breit oval... scharf segmentiert, doch dadurch an den Randern nur gekerbt, wogegen am Rande des dritten bis achten Segments je ein réhriges, braunes Spiraculum hervorragt. Die Farbe ist hellbraun . . . und bei gefiilltem Magen blaulich unrein.”’; (English translation: “Thickness of legs increasing from first to third pair, yet not in the degree as found in the louse of the red deer... The female abdomen is broad oval . . . strictly segmented, on the margins only crenated, but on the margin of the 3rd to the 8th segment each with a protruding tubuliform brown spiracle. The colour is light brown... and dirty bluish when the stomach is filled.’’). Giebel further stated in his discussion that ‘“‘Die von ihm (Nitzsch; our insert) gegebene Abbildung ist nach den annoch vorhandenen Spiritusexemplaren wie alle Nitzsch’schen Zeichnungen sehr getreu und weicht von Denny’s Beschrei- bung und Abbildung so erheblich ab, dass man an der Identitat beider gerechte Zweifel haben muss.”’; (English translation: ‘““The figures given by him (Nitzsch) 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature are in agreement with the original alcohol specimens before me and very precise as all other drawings of Nitzsch, differing from Denny’s description and figures so much that the identity of both is truly in question.”). Giebel herewith pointed out the discrepancy between Nitzsch’s and Denny’s descriptions, and expressed his doubt about the identity of what was known as ‘eurysternus’ (Pediculus eurysternus Nitzsch, 1818; Haematopinus eurysternus Denny, 1842— nec Nitzsch, 1818). 9. Piaget (1880, Les Pédiculines: 648, Pl. 53, Fig. 1) used the name Haemato- pinus eurysternus sensu Denny (1842). 10. Enderlein (1904, Zool. Anz. 28 : 144, Figs. 14 and 15) described, as new to science, Solenopotes capillatus for the little blue cattle louse, which was already described as Haematopinus eurysternus Nitzsch by Burmeister (1834) and Nitzsch (1864). Thus S. capillatus in fact became a junior synonym of H. eurysternus (Burmeister). 11. The common usage of the name Haematopinus eurysternus sensu Denny (1842) for the short-nosed cattle louse has remained unchanged since Denny (1842) except for Giebel (1874), and Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein has been unquestionably used since 1904. This usage has been widely accepted by entomologists, biologists, veterinarians, livestock specialists, and others throughout the world. These names have been uniformly used in the extensive literature of parasitology, entomology, systematics, veterinary medicine, livestock science and others for more than a century in the sense of Denny (1842) and Enderlein (1904). The works of Nitzsch (1864) and Giebel (1874) apparently did not influence subsequent workers in the use of these names. 12. The following major references used Haematopinus eurysternus sensu Denny and Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein: Osborn, H. 1896. Insects affecting domestic animals, Bulletin of USDA Division of Entomology, 5 (new series) : 172-175. Ferris, G. F. 1919-1935. Contributions Toward a Monograph of the Sucking Lice, Stanford University Publications 2 (6) : 448-452. Ferris, G. F. 1951. The sucking lice, Mem. Pac. Coast Ent. Soc. 1. Fahrenholz, H. 1939. Mitteilungen Ent. Verein Bremen 20 : 34. Stojanovich, C. J., and Pratt, H. D. 1965. Key to the Anoplura of North America, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, p. 5, 22. Herms, W.B. 1915. (subsequent editions to 1967). Medical Entomology Macmillan, New York. James, M. T., and Harwood, R. F. 1969. Herm’s Medical Entomology. 6th ed. Macmillan, N.Y. P. 143. Busvine, J. R. 1966. Insects and Hygiene. Methuen, London, p. 253. Chandler, A. C., and Read, C. P. 1961. Jntroduction to Parasitology. J. Wiley and Sons, New York and London, p. 633. Waterhouse, D. F. 1970. The Insects of Australia. Melbourne Univ. Press, Carlton, Victoria, Australia, p. 376-386. Richards, O. W., and Davies, R. G. 1964. A. D. Imms. A General Textbook of Entomology. Methuen Co. Ltd., London, p. 414-417. Tillyard, R. J. 1926. The insects of Australia and New Zealand. Angus and Robertson Ltd., Sydney, Australia. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 Freund, L. 1918. Eine seltene Rinderlaus in B6hmen. Lotos Naturwiss. Ztschr. 66 : 40-41. Freund, L. 1935. 13. Ordnung. Liause, Anoplura. /n Brohmer et al. : Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas. 4 (3) : 1X, 1-26 (18/19). Jancke, O. 1938. Die Anopluren Deutschlands. Jn F. Dahl : Die Tier- welt Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Meeresteile, 35 : 43-76 (57/61/62). Haematopinus eurysternus sensu Denny and authors is commonly used in many hundreds of entomological and veterinary publications during the past 130 years. 13. Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein, 1904 is the type-species of the genus Solenopotes Enderlein. Any nomenclatorial change for S. capillatus related to Haematopinus eurysternus will cause a great confusion in the literature and hamper the progress of science. 14. The strict application of the Code in this case will cause endless con- fusion in the literature, and will retard the progress in the understanding of Anoplura. Therefore, the present usage of the names Haematopinus eurysternus (Nitzsch, 1818) sensu Denny (1842) and authors for the short-nosed cattle louse and Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein for the little blue cattle louse should remain unchanged for stability of the nomenclature in Anoplura. 15. For the reasons set forth in the present application the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name eurysternus Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen Pediculus eurysternus, and any other use of that combination before Denny, 1842, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name So/enopotes Enderlein, 1904 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Solenopotes capillatus Enderlein, 1904, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) eurysternus Denny, 1842, as published in the binomen Haemato- pinus eurysternus, as interpreted by the lectotype designated herein ; (b) capillatus Enderlein, 1904, as published in the binomen Solenopotes capillatus (type-species of Solenopotes Enderlein, 1904); (3) to place the specific name eurysternus Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen Pediculus eurysternus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Lectotype Designation: Haematopinus eurysternus Denny, 1842, lectotype, female, Britain, “1852-98”, Denny Collection; paralectotype, female, Britain, “1852-98”, Denny Collection. These specimens are deposited in the Denny Collection of the British Museum (Natural History). The description of this species is referred to Ferris (1933, Contributions Toward a Monograph of the Sucking Lice, Part 6, pp. 450-2, Figs. 263, 264). 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 16. This proposal has been supported by the following scientists: Dr. Phyllis T. Johnson, 355 Princeton Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626, U.S.A. Dr. Theresa Clay, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7., England. Dr. M. D. Murray, McMaster Laboratory, Division of Animal Health, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Private Bag No. 1, P.O. Glebe, N.S.W. 2037, Australia Dr. J. H. Whitlock, New York State Veterinary College, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850, U.S.A. Dr. J. R. Georgi, New York State Veterinary College, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850, U.S.A. Dr. K. C. Emerson, Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560. Dr. Roger D. Price, Department of Entomology, Fisheries, and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 GAMMARUS SETOSUS DEMENTIEVA, 1931 (CRUSTACEA: AMPHIPODA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2015 By N. L. Tzvetkova (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR) Gammarus setosus Dementieva, 1931 is a name which has firmly entered world literature on amphipods for designating a common boreoarctic species of shallow water gammarids circumpolar in the Arctic and distributed also in the North Pacific along the coast of Asia to the Okhotsk Sea and along the coast of America to the Gulf of Alaska (Bousfield and Hubbard, 1968, Nat. Mus. Canada, Nat. Hist. Papers, No. 40: I-11; Tzvetkova, 1968, Zool. journ. 47 (3) : 640, etc.). This species however has a senior synonym—G. spetsbergensis Vosseler, 1889, which was described by Vosseler much earlier from the area of Spitsbergen from two specimens which were small for this species (Vosseler, 1889, Arch. Naturg. 55, Bd. I, Hft. 2 : 151). 2. G. setosus was separated by T. F. Dementieva (1931, Trans. State Oceanographical Institute, Moscow, 1, issue 2-3: 74-82, figures 7, 8 l.c.) on material from the west coast of Novaya Zemlya (Belushya Gulf). Though the author did not give a complete description and figures of this species the separation of this species complies with the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature accepted at the 15th International Zoological Congress (Articles 11 and 13), as there was shown the main specific character— feathery setae on the apex of the lobes of the telson and the separation of this species from the close forms of “/ocusta’’ by some other characters. Later in 1940 Stephensen gave figures and a more complete description of the characters of this species (which he treated as a subspecies of G. Jocusta) from the coast of Spitsbergen (Stephensen, 1940, Tromsé Museums Scrifter, 3 (3) : 315, 321, fig. 41). 3. Gammarus spetsbergensis Vosseler, 1889 (Arch. Naturg. 55, Bd. I, Hft. 2 : 158, taf. 8, fig. 25-31) was described from two small specimens (8 mm in length) from the area of Spitsbergen at a depth of 85 m. The main specific character—feathery setae on the apex of the lobes of the telson was noted on the figure and in the text (Vosseler, /.c., pl. 8, fig. 30). On the basis of this character and the position of tufts of setae on the distal half of the upper edge of the first segment of the peduncle of antenna I (Vosseler, l.c., fig. 27) (this character was in addition introduced by me during the revision of the gammarids of the “zaddachi-group”’ as a stable character of G. setosus, usable even for juveniles) the identity of these two species, one described by Vosseler and the other separated by Dementieva, is unquestionable. The identity of these species was indicated further by Stephensen (1940, p. 323). 4. In the same paper Stephensen treats G. spetsbergensis of Vosseler as a synonym of G. locusta setosus Dementieva, considering the description of Vosseler not complete enough for the acknowledgment of his species: “The original description is rather brief, and the figures . . . are few, reproduced on a Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature small scale and on the whole representing appendages of rather slight specific importance. But the identity of the species is certain, for the telson (Vosseler, p. 8, fig. 30) has feathery setae . . .”” (Stephensen, 1940 : 323, 321). 5. At present the name “sefosus”’ introduced by Dementieva has been mentioned in publications more than 36 times by 23 different authors for the period of 41 years after separation of G. setosus, while the name G. spetsbergensis was mentioned only 4 times during 83 years and described by 4 authors: Vosseler (in the original description); Stephensen (l.c.) where he treats this species as a synonym of G. J/ocusta setosus; Stebbing, 1906, Das Tierreich, 21: 742 (“Addenda et Corrigenda”), and J. L. Barnard (1958, Allan Hancock Found. Publ., occ. Pap., 19 : 55) in the list of specific names reduced to synonyms. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not those of the Law of Homonymy, the specific name spetsbergensis Vosseler, 1889 (Arch. Naturg. 55, Bd. I, Hft. 2 : 158), as published in the binomen Gammarus spetsbergensis; (2) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: setosus Dementieva, 1931 (Trans. State Oceanogr. Institute I,issue 2-3 : 74-82, fig. 7-8, part.), as published in the binomen Gammarus setosus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name spetsbergensis Vosseler, 1889, as suppressed under (1) above. Prof. E. F. Gurjanova and Dr. Y. I. Starobogatov, both of whom I con- sulted, support this proposal. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 RHOPALIDIA LEPELETIER, 1836 (HYMENOPTERA : VESPIDAE): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2017 By O. W. Richards (University of London, London, England) Guerin-Meéneville (in Duperrey, 1831 : Plate IX, fig. 8) published the generic name Ropalidia for the single new species, R. maculiventris (see Bequaert, 1918 : 244). Since Bequaert pointed this out, the name Ropalidia has been used instead of Icaria de Saussure, 1853 : 22, plates 4, 5, for a large genus, containing many species in all tropical countries except America. 2. Lepeletier (1836 : 538) published a genus Rhopalidia for (p. 539) Rh. rufithorax and Rh. pallens, two American species, now known as Polybia sericea (Olivier, 1791) and Stelopolybia (Angiopolybia) pallens (Lep.), respectively. This was an independent foundation, based on quite different insects from Ropalidia. Although in 1838-9 (in the text accompanying the plates of Duperrey’s work) Guérin-Meéneville adopted Lepeletier’s spelling, he pointed out that his own species, R. maculiventris was too different to require comparison with the two described by Lepeletier. 3. Schultz (1912 : 60), discussing Lepeletier’s genus, pointed out that Rh. rufithorax Lep. had already been synonymised with Po/ybia sericea (Olivier) by de Saussure and that Rh. pallens Lep. was a synonym of Polybia infernalis de Saussure, 1854. This latter species had been included by Ducke (1910 : 517) in his new genus Stelopolybia. Schulz therefore suggests that Rh. pallens Lep. should be regarded as the type of Rhopalidia which should replace Ste/opolybia. Under a more recent system, Angiopolybia Araujo, 1946 (type Rhopalidia pallens Lep.) has been separated from Stelopolybia Ducke and Rhopalidia Lep. would replace the generic name Angiopolybia. 4. However, it is highly undesirable to have two different genera within the Vespidae called Ropalidia and Rhopalidia. Lepeletier’s genus has not appeared in the literature, apart from Schulz’s reference, except as a synonym of Polybia Lepeletier in von Dalla Torre’s Catalogue (1894). The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested to: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the name Rhopalidia Lepeletier, 1836, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the generic name Rhopalidia Lepeletier, 1836 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid generic names in Zoology. REFERENCES ArAUJO, R. L. 1946. Angiopolybia nom. n., para o conceito revalidado de ‘‘Stelo- polybia Ducke, 1914” (Hym.—Vespidae—Polybiinae). Pap. Dep. Zool. Sec. Agric. S. Paulo, 7 : 165-170 Bequaert, J.C. 1918. A revision of the Vespidae of the Belgian Congo, etc. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 39 : 1-384, 6 plates, 267 figs. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Datta Torre, K. W. Von. 1894. Catalogus Hymenopterorum, 9, Vespidae (Diploptera). Leipzig Ducke, A. 1910. Révision des guépes sociales polygames d’Amérique. Ann. Mus. nat. Hungarici, 8 : 449-544, 17 figs. Duperrey, L. I. 1826-1839. Voyage autour du monde... sur... la Coquille pendant . . . 1822-25... 6 vols, 158 plates. Paris LEPELETIER DE ST. FARGEAU, A. 1836. Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Hyménop- téres, 1. (Roret’s suites 4 Buffon). Paris Saussure, H. de. 1853-58. Etudes sur la famille des Vespides,2. Paris & Geneva ScuuLtz, W. A. 1912. Aelteste und alte Hymenopteren skandinavischer Autoren. Berl. ent. Zs., 57 : 52-102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51 LACHRYMA SOWERBY, [1832] (MOLLUSCA): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 2018 By W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) The genus-group name Lachryma was first introduced into binominal malaco- logical literature through publication in synonymy (Article 11(d) of the Code of ICZN) by Sowerby [1832]. The original entry reads as follows: es {Erato] Lachryma Gray. Lachryma trifasciata, Humphrey, MSS, Conch. Illust. f.48.” 2. The genus-group name Lachryma was thus erected by Sowerby (op.cit.) through publication in synonymy of Erato lachryma Gray in Sowerby, 1832 (9th November 1832). The genus-group name Lachryma has remained unused since it was considered synonymous with the chronologically prior Erato Risso, 1826; it was once again re-introduced into literature by Iredale (1931), but without its original date and authorship. After 1931 and prior to 1961, the genus-group name Lachryma Sowerby, has been treated as an available name with its original date and authorship or treated as a senior synonym by the following authors: Cotton & Godfrey (1932); Iredale (1935); Allan (1956 and 1959) and Cotton (1958 and 1959). After 1961 the genus-group name Lachryma has been accepted and used by Iredale & McMichael (1962) and Cernohorsky (1968 and 1971). 3. Schilder (1927) proposed the genus-group name Proterato (type-species Erato neozelanica Suter, 1917) for the same group of species which are referable to Lachryma Sowerby. Proterato Schilder is either considered a subjective synonym of Lachryma or is used as a subgenus of the latter for Austral-Neoze- lanic fossil species (Cernohorsky, 1971). Schilder, (1936) considered Lachryma Sowerby not to be an available name because of publication in synonymy and continued to use Proterato Schilder in his own publications. Proterato Schilder has also been used by Fleming (1966). In their latest publication on Recent and fossil Cypraeacea, M. and F. A. Schilder (1971) continue to consider Lachryma Sowerby as not validly established and therefore unavailable for taxonomic usage. 4. The type-species of Lachryma Sowerby, has been cited as either Erato lachryma Gray in Sowerby, [1832], by tautonymy or as Lachryma trifasciata “Humphrey MS’, Sowerby [1832] by monotypy. Since a type-fixation by monotypy takes precedence over a type-fixation by tautonymy, Lachryma trifasciata Sowerby, [1832] (= érato lachryma Gray in Sowerby, [1832]) should be considered as the type-species of Lachryma Sowerby, by monotypy. Erato lachryma Gray in Sowerby, having been published simultaneously with Lachryma trifasciata Sowerby, has priority over the latter by virtue of the first reviser action of Reeve, 1842 (:261). 5. The date of erection of Lachryma Sowerby is also in dispute and the date Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1, July 1973. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is variously cited as 1832 (Iredale, 1935; Cernohorsky, 1968, 1971) or as 1837 (Schilder, 1936; M. & F. A. Schilder, 1971). The genus-group name Lachryma was erected in “A catalogue of the Recent species of Cypraeadae” which was issued together with G. B. Sowerby’s “Conchological Illustrations”. In the plate explanations to part 7 of the “Conchological Illustrations” dated 9th November 1832, the following note is printed at the bottom of the page: “N.B. A part of the Catalogue of Cypraeidae is given with this”. Shaw (1909) considers pages 1-8 of the catalogue to have been issued with part 7 and suggests that pages 9-18 of the catalogue have probably appeared with part 8 of the “Conchological Illustrations” (prior to 30th November 1832). Since it has been established through internal evidence that the first part of the catalogue appeared already on the 9th November 1832, the Commission is requested to set the date of publication of ‘A catalogue of the Recent species of Cypraeadae”’, which appeared in G. B. Sowerby’s “Conchological Illustrations”, as the 30th November 1832, under the provisions of Article 21(e) of the Code of ICZN. 6. The continued usage of the chronologically prior Lachryma Sowerby [1832], by some authors and usage of the later subjective synonym Proterato Schilder, 1927, by others, is untenable and nomenclatorially confusing. It has been demonstrated that the genus-group name Lachryma Sowerby, and the species-name trifasciata Sowerby, have been used prior to 1961 with their original date and authorship by 4 different authors in 6 different publications. The Commission is therefore requested to consider Lachryma Sowerby to be an available name as from 30 November 1832, as it has satisfied the provisions of Article 11(d) of the Code of ICZN, and the Commission is further requested: (1) to place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Lachryma Sowerby [1832] (gender: feminine), type-species by monotypy Lachryma trifasciata Sowerby [1832]; (2) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: lachryma Gray in Sowerby, 1832, as published in the binomen Erato lachryma. REFERENCES ALLAN, J. 1956. Cowry shells of world seas: 139 ALLAN, J. 1959. Australian shells, rev. ed.: 132, 478 CERNOHORSKY, W. O. 1968. Veliger 10 : 370 CeRNoHorSKY, W. O. 1971. Rec. Auckl. Inst. Mus. 8: 106 Cotton, B.C. 1958. J. Malac. Soc. Aust. no. 2:11 Corron, B.C. 1959. Sth. Austral. Moll.: 367 Corron, B. C. and Goprrey, F. K. 1932. Sth. Austral. Nat. 13 : 45 FLEMING, C. A. 1966. N.Z. Dep. sci. ind. Res. Bull. 173 : 52 IREDALE, T. 1931. Rec. Austral. Mus. 18 : 223 IREDALE, T. 1935. Austral. Zool. 8 : 97 TREDALE, T. & McCMicHaeEL, D. 1962. Austral. Mus. Mem. no. 11: 58 Reeve, L. A. 1842. Conchologia Systemica 2 : 261 ScHILDER, F. A. 1927. Arch. Naturg. 91/A10 : 57 ScHILDER, F. A. 1936. Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 22 : 86 ScHILDER, M. & SCHILDER, F. A. 1971. Mém. Inst. Roy. Sci. Nat. Belg. 85 : 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 SHaw, H.O.N. 1909. Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 8 : 340 Sowerby, G. B. [1832]. A catalogue of the Recent species of Cypraeadae in Concho- logical Illustrations : 1-18 Sowersy, G. B. 1832. Conchological Illustrations pt. 7: pit. expl. f.48 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TUTUFA JOUSSEAUME, 1881 (GASTROPODA): REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2021 By A. G. Beu (New Zealand Geological Survey, DSIR, Lower Hutt, New Zealand) During the course of a revision of the large Indo-West Pacific Bursidae currently placed in the genus or subgenus Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (perhaps most usually ranked as a subgenus of Bursa Réding, 1798, but modern taxonomic analysis of this complex family has never been carried out) it became clear that the current interpretation of the nominal species Murex lampas Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type-species of Tutufa by Jousseaume (1881, p. 175) makes the generic name a synonym of Charonia Gistel, 1847, in the Cymatiidae. No synonym is available to replace Tutufa. Therefore an application is made to the Commission to designate an unambiguous species as type that will conserve Tutufa in its current sense. 2. Linnaeus (1758, p. 748) included two references to earlier figures in the synonymy of Murex lampas: Rondelet, 1555, p. 81 and Gualtieri, 1742, pl. 50, fig. D. The Rondelet figure shows Charonia lampas lampas (Linnaeus, 1758) = C. nodifera (Lamarck, 1822). The Gualtieri figures clearly show the large, common, Indo-West Pacific species of Tutufa that was also named Murex rana var. bubo by Linnaeus (1758, p. 748), and was named Bursa (Tutufa) rubeta var. gigantea by E. A. Smith (1914, p. 230) in the only published critical review of Tutufa. The name Murex lampas was considered to apply to the latter giant species of Tutufa by all the writers of the popular iconographies of molluscs published during the nineteenth century, and became so deeply entrenched in the scientific and popular literature of Pacific gastropods that most amateur collectors and many molluscan taxonomists still use it, despite the fact that recent critical analysts of Linnaeus’ molluscs (E. A. Smith, 1914, p. 227; Dodge, 1957, p. 103) considered that the name Murex lampas applied to a species of Charonia. 3. Jousseaume (1881, p. 175) proposed the genus Tutufa in a systematic revision of the genera of the Bursidae, including in his description the phrase “canal postérieur trés court et largement ouvert...” (so that he cannot have meant a species of Charonia, which has no posterior (anal) canal in the aperture), and included the four species Murex lampas Linnaeus, 1758, Tutufa caledonensis nov., Triton ranelloides Reeve, 1844 and Murex scrobiculator Linnaeus, 1758. There is no doubt he intended the genus to be used for the species of Bursidae with varices situated approximately every 270° around the spire, rather than aligned up the sides of the spire as in all other Bursidae. The species included in Tutufa by Jousseaume are currently included in Tutufa (lampas, cale- donensis), Tritonoranella Oyama, 1964 (ranelloides) and Bufonariella Thiele, 1929 (scrobiculator). In common with all previous iconographers and with some modern taxonomists, Jousseaume evidently thought the name Murex lampas covered a single variable species of large Bursidae. Thus he was justified in Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 stating clearly: “Genre Tutufa nobis. Type Murex lampas Linné.” However, he did not qualify his designation by stating which of Linnaeus’ figures he referred to and, indeed, was almost certainly unaware of the complexities of Linnaeus’ names. 4. The writer (Beu, 1970, p. 211) has previously designated the shell figured by Rondelet (1555, p. 81) as lectotype of Murex lampas Linnaeus, 1758 and thereby made it the valid name for the species of Charonia that was previously called C. nodifera (Lamarck, 1822)= C. opis (Réding, 1798) = C. gyrinoides (Brocchi, 1814), etc. Therefore, strictly speaking, Tutufa can be construed only as a synonym of Charonia Gistel, 1847 (type species: Murex tritonis Linnaeus, 1758, Indo-West Pacific). 5. The only existing synonym of Tutufa Jousseaume is Lampas Schumacher, 1817 (type-species: Lampas hians Schumacher, 1817; based on Martini, Conchylien — Cabinet, vol. 4, pl. 128, figs. 1236, 1237 = Murex rana var. rubeta Linnaeus, 1758) but this is preoccupied by Lampas Montfort, 1810, a genus of Foraminiferida. Thus if Tutufa were to fall as a synonym of Charonia a new name would be required to replace Jousseaume’s currently well-under- stood name. This seems unnecessarily unfortunate when Jousseaume designated as type a nominal species that at the time was consistently applied to the giant species of Bursidae he intended should be type-species of Tutufa. The interpreta- tion of the name Jousseaume used has changed through accidents of nomen- clature and changes in the application of nomenclatural rules, and it is not the species he wished to designate that is at fault but the name he used for it in his designation. Thus this is a case of misidentified type-species, and under the Code, Article 70(a), an application is made to designate a type-species under the Commission’s plenary powers. Under Article 70(a) the choices for designa- tion as type-species of Tutufa are (1) Charonia lampas (Linnaeus, 1758), the name Jousseaume wrongly called his designated type-species by, and (2) the species Jousseaume intended to designate as type-species but wrongly identified. 6. At this stage it is necessary to point out that, whereas most taxonomists with whom the writer has discussed Indo-Pacific Bursidae regard the “forms” included in Tutufa as part of the variation of a single species, anatomical study by the writer has shown that the ‘“‘forms”’ are as distinct as any other molluscan species, and distinct anatomies are associated with the previously apparent consistent shell differences. There are at least six species of Tutufa sensu stricto. The nomenclature of some of the species is obscure as yet, particularly the status of the name Murex rana var. bubo Linnaeus, 1758 (which probably applies to the large species named Bursa (Tutufa) rubeta var. gigantea by E. A. Smith (1914, p. 230), figured by Gualtieri (1742, pl. 50, fig. D) in the figure quoted by Linnaeus in the synonymy of Murex lampas, and is probably the form Jousseaume thought of as typical of the broad species he meant by the name Murex lampas) which will probably require the designation of a neotype before it is stabilised. Therefore a type-species for Tutufa must be chosen with care. 7. Since the initial pointing out of the occurrence of several consistent “varieties” in Tutufa by E. A. Smith (1914), the name used most commonly in place of the rejected Murex lampas (now applied to a species of Charonia) 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by those authors who regarded the “forms” of Tutufa as part of the variation of one species is Bursa (or Tutufa) rubeta, based on Murex rana var. rubeta Linnaeus (1758, p. 748). Linnaeus’ synonymy consists of only one figure (Rumphius, 1711, pl. 28, fig. D; figured better in a later redrawn edition: Rumphius, 1766, pl. 28, fig. D; referred to by Rumphius (1766, p. 61) as ‘“‘Buccina tuberosa rufa, oder rothe héckerigte Kinkhérner’’) which shows a relatively very small, extremely coarsely sculptured shell which, in combination with the red colour, cannot be intended for any species other than Tutufa rubeta of all authors. As one of the two oldest available names applied to species of Tutufa, as the name most consistently used in its correct sense, and as the most clearly identifiable of the early-named species of Tutufa (those implicitly included in Jousseaume’s concept of Tutufa lampas), this seems the best nominal species to choose as type-species of Tutufa. 8. Therefore in the interests of stability of nomenclature, the Commission is requested (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type- species for the genus Tutufa Jousseaume and, having done so, to designate Murex rana var. rubeta Linnaeus, 1758 as type-species of Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881; (2) to place the generic name Jutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (gender: feminine), type-species (by designation under (1) above) Murex rana var. rubeta Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name rubeta Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the binomen Murex rana var. rubeta) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Beu, A.G. 1970. The Mollusca of the genus Charonia (Family Cymatiidae). Trans. N. Soc. N.Z., Biol. Sci., 11(16) : 205-23 Dopce, H. 1957. A historical review of the mollusks of Linnaeus. Part 5. The genus Murex of the class Gastropoda. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., 113 : 73- 224 Gua tier!, N. 1742. Index Testarum Conchyliorum. Florence. JOUSSEAUME, F, P. 1881. Description de nouvelles Coquilles. Bull. Soc. zool. France, 6 : 172-88. Linnagus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10,1. Regnum Animale. Stockholm RONDELET, G. 1555. Libri de piscibus .. [part 2]. Leiden Rumpuius, G. E. 1711. Thesaurus imaginum piscium testaceorum. Leiden — 1766. Amboinsche Raritdten-Kammer .. .[ed. J. H. Chemnitz]. Vienna Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 LORIIDAE (AVES)—AUTHOR AND DATE : PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENT OF OPINION 938. Z.N.(S.)2022 By G. N. Kashin (Moscow) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, on the grounds of a proposal by Prof. Ernst Mayr and Dr. H. T. Condon, has placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name LoruDAE (correction of LORIANAE) Swainson, 1837, with the Name Number 457, and with the original reference : On the Natural History and Classification of Birds 2: 303, of Swainson. However, W. Swainson was not the first author to create a family-group name based on the generic name Lorius. It was, one year earlier, Prideaux J. Selby, 1836 (Parrots, vol. 15 of Sir William Jardine’s “The Naturalist’s Library’. Selby divided the family PSITTACIDAE into five subfamilies, the fourth of which he named LORIANA on pp. 57 and 141, and LorIANAE on p. 142. In the subfamily Selby included the species Lorius domicellus, Charmosyna papuensis, Trichoglossus swainsoni, T. versicolor, T. pyrrhopterus, Coriphilus kuhlii and Psittaculus galgulus. All these species are drawn on coloured plates no. 18-24. In view of the fact set out above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name LORIIDAE (correction of LORIANA and LORIANAE) Selby, 1836. REFERENCES LoriaANA & LORIANAE—SELBY, P. J. 1836. Parrots, in Naturalist’s Library, Orni- thology 6 : 57, 141, 142 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature FORMICA MAXIMA MOORE, 1842 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 23(a-b). Z.N.(S.)2023 By W. D. L. Ride! and R. W. Taylor? The names Myrmecia regularis Crawley, 1925; Myrmecia nigriceps Mayr, 1862; and Myrmecia vindex Smith, 1858, are at present widely used for three species of bull-dog ant in the south-west of Western Australia. The ants are large and conspicuous members of the insect fauna and, because of their powerful stings, are well-known. The names are in general current use in the sense of Article 79(b)—see attached list. 2. The name Formica maxima Moore, 1842, occurs in a descriptive vocabu- lary of the Aboriginal language. The description is undoubtedly of an ant of the genus Myrmecia but the name lacks a type specimen. If a neotype were to be selected from the geographical area to which the description relates, (i.e. the south-west of Western Australia), the name F. maxima would certainly be a senior synonym of one of the names, M. regularis, M. nigriceps, M. vindex or Myrmecia vindex basirufa Forel, 1907 (the latter is currently held possibly to be a full species but it is a name not in general current use—see 4 below.) 3. The name Formica maxima Moore, 1842, is not known to have been used except in the two editions of Moore’s work (1842, 1884) and in two editions of a contemporary general work by a missionary (Salvado 1851 and 1854). 4. Although M. vindex basirufa Forel, 1907, is not known to be a name in general current use (see attached list), stability would not be served by causing it, through neotype selection for F. maxima Moore, to become the junior sub- jective synonym of F. maxima Moore, 1842, since the taxonomy of M. vindex and M. vindex basirufa is not fully understood and F. maxima might, through synonymy of basirufa with vindex, be caused to replace M. vindex, a stable name in general current use. 5. The Commission is requested to use its Plenary Powers (Art. 79) to suppress the name Formica maxima Moore, 1842, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not the Law of Homonymy and to place it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names. 6. In accordance with Article 80, until the Commission’s decision is known, the name Formica maxima Moore, 1842, is not to be used as the valid name of a south-western Australian species of ant in the genus Myrmecia. Acknowledgements: The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Miss Sara J. Meagher for drawing their attention to this name, and others, in Moore’s work; and to Mr. L. Koch, Dr. D. L. Serventy and Mr. G. P. Whitley for assistance. List of publications demonstrating general current use of the names Myrmecia 'The Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, W.A. 6000, Australia 2Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 regularis Crawley, 1925, M. nigriceps Mayr, 1862, and M. vindex F. Smith, 1858, and the usage of M. vindex basirufa Forel, 1907. 1. Myrmecia regularis Crawley, 1925. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. Ser. 9, 16: 579-580. Sudd, 1967 : 116; Haskins, C. P. and E. F., 1964 : 268 et a/.; Wheeler, G. C. and J., 1964 :444; Douglas and Brown, 1959: 18; Freeland, 1958: 11; Haskins, C. P. and E. F. 1955 : 116 et a/.; Haskins and Whelden, 1954: 35 et al.; Brown, 1953 : 29 et al.; Wheeler, G. C. and J., 1952 : 113; Clark, 1951 : 91 et al. 2. Myrmecia nigriceps Mayr, 1862. Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien. 12 : 728. Brown and Taylor, 1970 : 955; Haskins, C. P. and E. F., 1964 : 270 et al.; Douglas and Brown, 1959 : 15 et al.; Freeland, 1958 : 11; Brown, 1953 : 22 et al.; Wheeler, G. C. and J., 1952 : 112; Clark, 1951 : 64 et al.; Clark 1934 : 7; Wheeler, W. M., 1933 : 38 et al.; Clark, 1927 : 33. 3. Myrmecia vindex Fr. Smith, 1858. Cat. Hym. Brit. Mus. 6 : 144-145. Wheeler, G. C. and J., 1971 : 254; Brown and Taylor, 1970 : 955; Haskins, C. P. and E. F., 1964 : 267 et al.; Douglas and Brown, 1959 : 14 et a/.; Haskins, C. P. and E. F., 1955 : 119; Haskins and Whelden, 1954 : 35 et a/.; Brown, 1953 : 22 et al.; Clark, 1951 : 67 et al/.; Haskins, C. P. and E. F., 1950 : 483; Wheeler, W. M., 1933 : 36 et al. 4. Myrmecia vindex basirufa Forel, 1907. Fauna Sudwest. Aust. 1 : 264. The known references are: Douglas and Brown, 1959 : 17; Clark, 1951 : 70 et al.; Wheeler, W. M., 1933 : 37. REFERENCES Brown, W. L. Jr. 1953. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Hary. 111(1) : 1-35 Brown, W. L. Jr., & TAYLor, R. W. 1970. In The Insects of Australia. Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic. xii + 1029 pp. (pp. 951-959) CLARK, J. 1927. Victoria Nat. 44 : 33-39 — 1934. Mem. natn. Mus. Vict. 8 : 5-20 —— 1951. The Formicidae of Australia, Volume \. Subfamily Myrmeciinae. CSIRO, Melbourne. 230 pp. Douc as, A., and Brown, W. L. JR. 1959. Insectes soc. 6(1) : 13-19 FREELAND, J. 1958. Aust. J. Zool. 6(1) : 1-18 Haskins, C. P. & Haskins, E. F. 1950. Amn. ent. Soc. Am. 43(4) : 461-491 — 1955. Insectes soc. 2(2) : 115-126 —— 1964. Insectes soc. 11(3) : 267-282 Haskins, C. P. & WHELDEN, R. M. 1954. Jnsectes soc. 1(1) : 33-37 Moore, G. F. 1842. A descriptive vocabulary of the language in common use amongst the aborigines of Western Australia with copious meanings embodying much interesting information regarding the habits, manners, and customs of the Natives, and fa ae history of the country. Wm.S. Orr, London. (p. 54, word “Kallili”. Moore, G. F. 1884. A descriptive vocabulary of the language in common use amongst the aborigines of Western Australia with copious meanings embodying much interesting information regarding the habits, manners, and customs of the Natives, and the natural history of the country. 2nd Ed. (Supplement to Diary of an early settler in Western Australia 1830-1841.) G. F. Moore, Sydney. (p. 39, word “‘Kallili’’.) 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SALVADO, R. 1851. Memorie storiche dell’ Australia particolarmente della Missione Benedettina di Nuova Norcia e degli usi e costumi degli Australiani. Roma, Congreg. de Propaganda Fide. pp. 53, 4. — 1854. Mémoires historiques sur l’Australie. Paris, Pringuet. p. 385. A translation by l’abbé Falcimagne with additional notes by the translator. Supp, J. H. 1967. An introduction to the Behaviour of Ants. Edward Arnold, London. viii + 200 pp. WHEELER, G. C. & WHEELER, J. 1952. Am. Midl. Nat. 48(1) : 111-114 — 1964. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 57 : 443-462 —— 1971. Pan-Pacif. Ent. 47(4) : 245-256. WHEELER, W. M. 1933. Colony Founding Among Ants. Harvard, Cambridge, Mass. viii + 179 pp. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 APPLICATION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE GENERIC NAME STRIGLINA GUENEE, 1877 (LEPIDOPTERA, THYRIDIDAE, STRIGLINAE) Z.N.(S.) 2025 By Paul E. S. Whalley (British Museum (Natural History) London, SW7) Application is made under Articles 23(a-b) and 79(b) for the suppression of Daristane Walker, 1859, in order to maintain Striglina Guenée, 1877. [Daristane Walker, 1859, J. Linn. Soc. 3: 193, type-species by monotypy, Daristane tibiaria Walker, 1859, ibid, 3: 194. Striglina Guenée, 1877, Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. 7 : 283, type-species Striglina lineola Guenée, 1877 by subsequent designation, Whalley, 1964, Ann, Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 7 : 126.] 2. The genus Daristane Walker was originally described in the Geometri- dae. Recently a single specimen of a thyridid moth, previously overlooked, has proved to be the holotype specimen of Daristane tibiaria Walker. This species is close to Striglina castaneata Hampson and is undoubtedly congeneric with it. The name Daristane Walker therefore becomes available in the Thyrididae and being congeneric with Striglina Guenée, should replace it. 3. I consider the generic name Striglina Guenée, while not necessarily widely known, to have been widely used and that nomenclatural stability will not be served by replacing it by the unknown and unused generic name Daristane Walker. 4. The name Daristane Walker has not, to the best of my knowledge, been used since its original description and has never been used in the Thyrididae. A survey of the literature for a forthcoming publication on the subfamily Striglinae shows that at least thirty authors have used Strig/ina in over eighty different publications. The name Striglina is used in standard reference works, e.g. Gaede in Seitz, Macrolepidoptera of the World, where it is used in each volume that mentions the Thyrididae. The last generic revision (just over fifty years ago) uses Striglina, (Gaede, M., 1922, Dt. ent. Z. 1922 : 26-33). 5. The generic name Striglina appears in the following references: Esaki, T. et al, 1957, Icones Heterocerorum Jap. in color. natur. p. 148 Schaus, W., 1934, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10) 14: 101 Tams, W. H. T., 1935, Jns. Samoa (4) 3 : 243-244 Turner, J., 1942, Proc. R. Soc. Od (1941) : 80 Viette, P., 1954, Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 59 : 120 West, R. J., 1932, Novit. zool. 38 : 7 Whalley, P. E. S., 1962, Nat. Hist. Rennell I., Brit. Sol. Is. 4(40) : 118 — 1964, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 7 : 126 — 1967, Faune de Madagascar, 24 : 42 — 1971, Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) suppl. 17 : 64 6. The International Commission, is therefore requested : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Daristane, Walker, 1859, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the generic name Daristane Walker, 1859, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 CRINOCERUS BURMEISTER 1839 (INSECTA: HEMIPTERA- HETEROPTERA: COREIDAE): A REQUEST FOR THE VALIDATION OF THE COMMONLY USED TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 2026 By R. O’Shea (Biological Sciences Group, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06268) Burmeister (1839: 318) erected the generic name Crinocerus as a replacement for Acanthocerus Palisot de Beauvois, 1818, in the erroneous belief that the latter name was preoccupied. A number of species was included in Crinocerus including crucifer (= Acanthocerus crucifer P de B, 1818) which as the type of Acanthocerus is automatically the type of Crinocerus; and sanctus (=Cimex sanctus Fabricius, 1775:709). 2. Mayr (1866) removed all the species except sanctus from Crinocerus and placed them in a variety of existing and new genera. The type-species crucifer was placed in Hymenophora Amyot and Serville. Thus the only species left in Crinocerus was sanctus, although the type crucifer had been removed. 3. In spite of this, the binomen Crinocerus sanctus has been used contin- uously since then, and has appeared in catalogues (e.g., Stal 1870) and in more general faunistic works (e.g. Costa Lima 1940). No other name has been used for this insect, or is at present available. Stability would be best served by preserving the binomen in general use, Crinocerus sanctus. 4. Therefore this petition asks that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (a) Use its plenary powers to: (i) Set aside Acanthocerus crucifer Palisot de Beauvois, 1818, as the type of Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839; (ii) designate Cimex sanctus Fabricius, 1775, as the type of Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839; (b) place the generic name Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839 (gender: masculine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (c) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name sanctus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Cimex sanctus Fabricius, 1775. 5. Iam very grateful for assistance received from Dr. C. W. Schaefer and Dr. J. A. Slater, in connection with this appeal, which is part of the work carried out under NSF Grant GB-27162, “Graduate Training in Environmental Biology”. REFERENCES BurMEIsTeR, H. 1839. Handbuch der Entomologie. Band 2 Besondere Ento- mologie. 1 Ordnung. Rhynchota. Berlin DE Costa Lima, A. 1940. Jnsectos do Brasil 2° Tomo. Hemipteros. Escola Nacional de Agronomia. Série Didatica N.3. Fasricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. Flensburgi & Lipsiae Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. July 1973. 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Mayr, G. L. 1866. Reise der Osterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde in den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859. Zoologischer Theil: Bd 1 Abth. 1. Hemiptera. Vienna STA, C. 1870. Enumeratio Hemipterorum 1. Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps- Akademiens Handlingar 9(1) : 143 TD NTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust on. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) O.B.E. (Secretary and Managing Director) The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C., C.H. M. J. Forest 7 Dr. N. E. Hickin ’ eDr.. L B. Holthuis ; ‘Dr. P. E. Kent, F.R.S. Prof. Dre oO. Kraus MrN.D. Riley, CBE. : fi 7 Dr. G. F. de Witte 7S ‘The Officers of the Trust ae Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) —___contsnrs : (continued from front wrapper) _ Opinions ichrois Hiibner, 1816)... 0. ss 10 ee! Ane uda (Martynov, 1931) . oe eG ieskes W778\e =. a oo) Dope LS i Be 26 New Cases , 1758 (Annelida, Oligochaeta): Desig- dance with accustomed usage. Prob- e ‘misidentification of the ia by ee i a py) (Gi ; ] jenary ower A. eae aa - 37 CONTENTS, F nares, Keogpimued from inside back wrap, he JUL 1973 e CH : Macgillivraya Grote, 1894 (Insecta, Collembola): Pro gsed suppression under the plenary powers (Willem N. Ellis and Peter li Haematopinus eurysternus Denny, 1842 (Insecta, Anoplura): mace validation under the oe powers ving — Kim and Christian F. Weisser) ae Pa Gammarus setosus eres 1931 (chs Anietaeay® Pro- posed validation under the plenary powers (N. L. Tzvetkova) Ph Rhopalidia Lepeletier, 1836 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): pees sup- pression under the plenary powers (O. W. Richards) . ‘ or Lachryma Sowerby, [1832] (Gastropoda): Proposed addition to cS Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (W. O. Cernohorsky) — Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda): Request for the designation of : a type-species under the plenary powers(A.G.Beu) .. Sn oa. LORUDAE (Avyes)—Author and date: Proposal for amendment of Opinion 938 (G. N. Kashin) .. re Se es ty me Formica maxima Moore, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers in accordance with Article 23 (a—b) (W. D. L. Ride and R. W. Taylor) : i Application for the conservation of the generic name Striglina Guenée, 1877 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Paul E. S. Whalley) ee = Crinocerus Burmeister, 1839 (Insecta, Hemiptera): A request for the validation of the commonly used type-species (R. O’Shea) 2 Cuaron Comment on the proposal concerning family names CASSIDAE and Harpidae (H. A. Rehder) i ae ye Be ae oe Further remarks on the availability of the generic name OniscidiaH. & A. — Adams (Ww. O. Cernohorsky; P. A. Maxwell & A.G.Beu) . : Comment on the proposed suppression of Ce crucialis (Ronald I. Crombie) pie ae ae : : s eS Addendum to the proposal that the generic name Teuthis ee Guan be suppressed (D. J. Woodland) Be? ere a a = Comment on the proposed es of the ae ie Graptolithus nilssoni Barrande (I. Strachan) . SoMa cee © 1973. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment oe At, ee ae x“ / Ok Volume 30, Part 2 Ee 10th October, 1973 pp. 65-128 . Le runcnace® 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 .. Ags a a 65 Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases .. 65 (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. 1973 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) ‘ vi % i , 0 . VAS ‘The Offers of the: a es : ; eae res ae pi; _ RIDE (Wesiem Australian iaaeine. Perth, Western Australia 28 ugust 1973) _ Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Hournurs “(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Netherlands) (28 August 1963) — Secretary: Mr. R. V. MELVILLE (nstitute of | Geological Sciences, Exhibit ion S.W.7) (30. January abeeT. Volume 30, Part 2 (pp. 65-128) 10th October 1973 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 [those marked with an asterisk involve the appli- cation of Articles 23(a-b) and (79)b]: *(1) Suppression of Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895 (Pisces, Galaxiidae). Z.N.(S.) 1877. *(2) Suppression of Tergipes adspersus Nordmann, 1845 (Mollusca, Opistho- branchia). Z.N.(S.) 2010. (3) Designation of a neotype for Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2027. (4) Designation of a type-species for Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2028. (5) Designation of lectotype for Psednura longicornis Sjéstedt, 1920 (Insecta, Orthoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2029. *(6) Suppression of Calyptraea striata Gray, 1825 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 2030. *(7) Suppression of Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda: Enoplida). Z.N.(S.) 2031. (8) Designation of a type-species for Cerithium Bruguiére, 1789 (Gastro- poda). Z.N.(S.) 2032. (9) Suppression of Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2033. *(10) Suppression of Drosophila carinata Grimshaw, 1901 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 2035. (11) Suppression of Hydrophorus jaculus Fallén as type-species of Hydro- Phorus Fallén, 1823, in favour of H. nebulosus Fallén. Z.N.(S.) 2036. (12) Designation of a type-species for Oscinella Becker, 1909 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 2037. *(13) Suppression of Leucospis gallica, Villers, 1789 and Cynips lugdunaea Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2038. (14) Designation of a type-species for Madiza Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 2040. (15) Suppression of lectotype and designation of neotype for Apis rotundata Fabricius, 1793. Z.N.(S.) 2042. 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ADDITIONAL NOTICES Attention is drawn to the following misprints not corrected in the volumes in which they appeared: (1) Opinion 893. Eumenidae names of Saussure (Hymenoptera): grant of availability to certain names proposed for secondary divisions of genera. This was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26 1970: 187-191. page 187 Line 11 from bottom: substitute “‘Pseudepipona” for ‘‘Pseudo- pipona’’. This was a typographical error made after the galley-proof stage of printing. The Commissioners were asked to declare the correctly spelled name (Pseudepipona, Saussure, 1856) as available and voted for that name (not Pseudopipona). (2) Proposal that the genus name Teuthis Linnaeus (Pisces) be suppressed. Z.N.(S.) 1721, published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 1972: 190-193. The most important correction is listed first. page 191 Line 7: “‘they did not believe’ should read “‘they did believe” page 190 Line 4 of para. 2: “has already designated” should read “had already designated” page 191 Line 3 from bottom of para. 5: “grounds that species is “complex’ ” should read “grounds that that species is ‘complex’ ”’ page 192 Line 8 from bottom of para. 7: “were not willing to substitute” should read ‘“‘were now willing to substitute”’. c/o British Museum (Natural History), MARGARET GREEN Cromwell Road, Scientific Assistant London, SW7 5BD, England International Commission on June 1973 Zoological Nomenclature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 CHANGE IN THE PERSONNEL OF THE COMMISSION’S OFFICE Members of the Commission will be sorry to learn that Mrs Doyle has resigned at her own request from the Commission’s office and from the post of Scientific Assistant to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. Mrs Doyle (then Miss Spillane) joined the staff of the Commission’s office in April 1958, when the office was situated in the house of the late Francis Hemming not far from the London Zoo, and when the preparations for the London Colloquium and International Congress of Zoology were entering their final stages. With her colleagues, she worked as a note-taker at sessions of the Colloquium, and then far into the night preparing the report of each day’s session for scrutiny the following morning. She moved with the Commission’s office to Parkway and later to the British Museum (Natural History). During the period following the London Congress, when the Assistant Secretary’s attention was largely concentrated on the work of the Editorial Committee on the Code, she was very largely responsible for maintaining the output of case-work and the publication of the Bulletin. When Dr China became Assistant Secretary (later Acting Secretary), she worked closely with him in reducing the immense backlog of case-work and in processing the very large number of decisions taken by the Commission during that time. She was also responsible for taking the notes and writing the reports of the Commission and Section meetings at the Washington (1963) and Monaco (1972) Con- gresses. Since Dr China’s retirement from the Commission in 1969 she has upheld the Commission’s office and maintained its output of work almost unaided. Those whose service to the Commission matches hers can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. Fortunately we shall not lose all touch with her, for it is hoped to make arrangements for her to prepare the next published instalment of the Official Lists and Indexes, working at home. Mrs Doyle is succeeded in the Commission’s office by another ‘“Margaret’’, Mrs Margaret Green, whose service started on 10 May 1973. Mrs Green is a graduate in zoology of London University and has worked as a Recorder and Senior Recorder for the Zoological Record (Entomology). She has thus an excellent background for the work and there are stronger reasons than homonymy for expecting excellent work from her. Dr Jan Nye has kindly agreed to provide guidance and advice in the preparation of cases for publica- tion. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 19 May 1973 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTAIRES: LUMBRICUS TERRESTRIS LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 272 Par M. B. Bouché (Station de Recherches sur la Faune du Sol, I.N.R.A., 21034 Dijon, France) Les arguments développés par Sims sont excellents et trés sérieux. A) Ma position (1970, 1972) était: 1°) aucun argument ne permettait de reconnaitre ce qu’était Lumbricus terrestris Linné, 1758 (discussion in Tétry, 1937, complétée par Bouché, 1970). 2°) Enterion herculeus Savigny, 1826 permettait d’identifier l’espéce couramment désignée sous le nom de Lumbricus terrestris Linné DepPuis le travail de Michaelsen, 1900; plusieurs auteurs maintenaient l’usage Lumbricus herculeus (Sav.) 1826. 3°) A aucun moment, on ne peut considérer Enterion terrestre Savigny, 1826 comme synonyme de Lumbricus terrestris Linné, 1758 et pas plus Savigny que Tétry ou Bouché n’ont “‘misidentified” leur matériel: il s’agit de deux taxons distincts. 4°) Si certains arguments sont “highly subjective’, d’autres sont trés concrets: présence de descriptions suffisamment précises in Savigny, 1826 (cf. Sims: Survey 5) et de matériel (aux types non désignés!) au Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris (révisé in Tétry, 1937, 1938). B) Sims apporte sur le probléme “Lumbricus terrestris—Enterion herculeus” deux faits “nouveaux”: 1°) Dans son “Survey” point 2, il attire justement l’attention sur le comportement d’accouplement superficiel de Lumbricus terrestris Linné, 1758 (Linné, 1766). Ceci constitue un argument presque indiscutable de diagnose, antérieur a Savigny, 1826. 2°) Il donne aux biologistes une base concréte et solide au taxon Lumbricus terrestris Linné, 1758 par la désignation d’un néotype. Il serait souhaitable de donner avec une extréme précision (quelques dizaines de métres) la localisation type, pour permettre a l’avenir de trancher par des méthodes biologiques les problémes taxonomiques (croisements, hétérogreffes, immunologie, etc.). Il a été montré (Bouché, 1972 p. 126; Bouché et Beugnot, 1972) la complexité du concept taxonomique Lumbricus terrestris Linné, 1758 = Lumbricus herculeus Savigny, 1826. Une description moderne se doit, pour éviter le retour a des confusions, de permettre 4 l'avenir un retour “aux sources biologiques” du type, dont les caractéres sont généralement trés stables temporo-spatialement. C) Il est maintenant certain que /’Enterion terrestre Savigny, 1822 n’est pas /’Enterion terrestre Savigny, 1826. Cette derniére est une espéce relativement endémique d’Europe occidentale, seulement typique dans le Bassin Parisien (Bouché, 1972: 319). Enterion terrestre Savigny 1822 est incertae sedis définitivement. En conclusion, j’appuie les propositions faites par R. W. Sims, dans la présente note, auprés de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique. Ces pro- positions sont propres a stabiliser la nomenclature. Bibliographie complémentaire a la précédente note: Boucné, M. B. et BEeuGNoT M. 1972. La complexité taxonomique de Lumbricus herculeus, illustrée par les caractéristiques des populations des stations de la R.C.P. 40. Rev. ecol. biol. sol, 9, 4, 697-704 Tétry, A. 1938. Révision des lombriciens de la collection de Savigny (2e note). Bull. mus. (2e sér.), 10, 1, 72-81 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CHANDA NAMA AS TYPE-SPECIES OF CHANDA (PISCES, AMBASSIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 1946 Nomenclature Committee, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, per Bruce B. Collette, Chairman (Fishes) Talwar (1971, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28: 104-5) has requested that the Commission suppress previous type-species selections for the genus Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822 and designate C. nama Hamilton-Buchanan as type-species thereby making the generic name Hamiltonia Swainson, 1839 a junior objective synonym of Chanda by virtue of having the same type-species. An ad hoc committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists has been formed to comment on this case: Dr. W. Ralph Taylor, National Museum of Natural History, Washington and Dr. Bruce Collette, National Marine Fisheries Service Systematics Laboratory, Washington, Chairman. There is no evidence that Hamiltonia was “proposed expressly as a substitute for Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan” as stated by Talwar. Hamiltonia as described, included only two of the species originally placed in Chanda—H. ovata Swainson based on Hamilton-Buchanan’s fig. 37 (of Chanda nama) and H. lata Swainson, also based on Hamilton-Buchanan’s “‘fig. 37”. Talwar and others consider that /ata is a misprint for /ala Hamilton-Buchanan and that the figure number is also in error. This cannot be proven but is irrelevant because Swain (1882, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad.: 276) designated the first species, H. ovata as the type-species of Hamiltonia. Swain listed Bogoda Bleeker as a synonym of Hamiltonia but evidently, by omission, considered Chanda a distinct genus. If Hamiltonia is not merely a substitute for Chanda, Jordan’s statement (1919, The Genera of Fishes: 172) that the type-species of Hamiltonia “‘carries the complex genus Chanda with it”’ is incorrect. Fowler (1905, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 57 : 500) clearly designated Chanda lala Hamilton-Buchanan as the type-species of Chanda after chronologically eliminating all other species originally included in Chanda which had been transferred to other genera. In the only recent review of the group, Fraser-Brunner (1954, Bull. Raffles Mus. 25) recognized both Hamiltonia and Chanda as valid genera with their type-species ovata (= nama) and lala respectively. Therefore, we strongly oppose Talwar’s request because it is based on unproved assumptions regarding Hamiltonia being a substitute for Chanda and because following his recommended course of action will make a genus-group name unavailable before a revision has been done to determine if the name is needed for a group of species. COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION CONCERNING TRACE FOSSILS. Z.N(S.) 1973 (See volume 29, pages 137-141) By E. Voigt (Geolog.-Paldontolog. Institut, Hamburg) In relation to the application cited above I want to comment that I fully support the ruling proposed by the late Professor Hintzschel and Professor Kraus. I feel that instructions (in the sense of a recommendation) are urgently needed not only in order to give workers in the field of ichnotaxa a better guide and a more sound basis. It seems still more important to me that such a recommendation certainly will lead to more clarity in the differentiation between available and unavailable names in this field, so that our “‘normal’’ nomenclature, as governed by the Code, will remain less disturbed by such unavailable names, erroneously deemed available by many workers. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature By H. Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) The application on ichnotaxa by Hantzschel and Kraus seems very balanced, but the accompanying comments from ichnologists are so one-sided that some comment from a zoologist seems necessary to re-establish the balance. I have happened to cooperate in formulating the proposals presented, and it also happens that for the moment I am myself a little bit of an ichnologist, working on animal tracks and excrements as seen on photographs from 8.000 m depth, so I know the needs for a precise nomenclature of these things. Our taxonomy for animals is a couple of centuries old and has grown into a very complex but also very sensitive system. Slight changes may cause strong and un- wanted consequences. No doubt, if the ichnologists took over our whole taxonomy, they would be very well off, building then on about two hundred years of experience. But the question is whether that action would leave the zoologists in a tolerable situ- ation. Yesterday, two of my grandchildren were playing in my house. The younger boy wanted all the bricks for himself, and the older girl protested more and more vividly, that she would end up in having nothing for herself. Should he be permitted to spoil her play, or shouldn’t they rather reach some sensible compromise? I can easily understand that ichnologists feel badly about having had their field ‘thrown out’ of zoological nomenclature in 1931, but I do think that it was nevertheless correct to do so. When the older names (before 1931) in ichnology were not ruled out at that same time, it was probably because it is extremely dangerous to rule retro- actively in taxonomy. We know many cases of trouble arisen from retro-active decisions. After all, the ‘generic’ and ‘specific’? names of ichnotaxa are meant in a manner differing strongly from usual zoological names, and it seems logical to ask that they be ‘earmarked’ as different. If somebody can propose a better system than that pro- posed by the present applicants, he should hasten to do so, but it will certainly disturb the use of zoological nomenclature if names are incorporated in large numbers in taxonomy without having the content that they so promise. In my present work on deep-sea photographs I have pictures of tracks of the meand- ric type which are identical to those which, from published photos we know are found in connection with enteropneusts, but the tracks in my material are of an animal which it will hardly be possible to include in that class of animals. Of course, I can create quite a number of Ichnotaxa, but it is a tremendous task for later scientists to refer them to their correct synonomy, and the trouble of priority of names will sometimes become grotesque. If no such obligation exists (and the ichno-names are marked so that it is apparent), there will be no trouble either. For real fossils the same kind of trouble sometimes appears, but by far less strongly, and so it is more tolerable. So I want to ask all parties involved to try finding the solution that assists the ichnologists as much as ever possible, without disturbing proper zoological nomenclature. By Ellis L. Yochelson (U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20570") Drs. Hantzchel and Kraus have performed a valuable service in pointing out the need for clarification of Article 16b (viii) in regard to names based on the work of an animal. As one who does not specifically study the field, I can testify objectively to the vitality and significance of the studies, as commented upon by Drs. Martinsson, Teichert, and Frey following the original case. My notes from the 1958 London Col- loquium on Nomenclature indicate that clarification of this point was requested early in the meeting, but it was not subsequently discussed. It is high time the Commission faced the difficulties of ichnotaxa and resolved them. In my view, the request by Hantzchel and Kraus should not be granted, for it is too restrictive. .There are only taxa under ICZN rules. The parataxa problem was resolved, and what was learned there can be treated identically, regardless of the 1Publication authorized by the Director, U.S. Geological Survey. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 kind of material on which they are based. Thus point 8 of the proposal would not be acceptable. Many of the names prior to 1930 which were based on “the work of an animal” referred to galls produced by insects. Objections to this practice may well have led to the 1931 restriction against names based on an indication. Living and fossil faunas are different in that there is essentially no opportunity for investigations of life cycle and different habits in extinct forms, whereas in theory at least, given enough time and patience, the animals responsible for every particular form of gall could be traced to the adult forms. It makes good sense to me to adopt a declaration repealing the date of 1931 and later in article 12, pending the next formal meeting at which the code could be amended. Such a procedure would allow the law of priority to operate and might result in a few individual problems that could then be handled under the plenary powers. Names based on indications are just as valid as names based on isolated conodonts. By allowing the rules to function in a simple straightforward manner, the spectre of dual nomenclature for isolated conodonts and assemblages was solved. By removing the post-1930 restriction, the rules will be allowed to operate for the “indications” of animals. A minimum of problems results from such a course of action. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS ANTHUS PA YTENSIS LESSON, 1837 (AVES) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE GEOSITTA_PERUVIANA LAFRESNAYE, 1847 and GEOSITTA PAYTAE MENEGAUX AND HELLMAYR, 1906. Z.N.(S.) 1980 By the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress, E. Eisenmann, Chairman Dr. Charles Vaurie has proposed the suppression of Anthus paytensis Lesson, 1837, a nomen dubium for over a century, and believed by its author to be a pipit (family Motacillidae), until Zimmer (1953) showed that it was a member of the Furnariidae of the species long known as Geositta peruviana Lafresnaye, 1847. The particular race had been named Geositta paytae by Ménégaux and Hellmayr, 1906. In view of the long usage, which has continued generally despite Zimmer, in the works most used as references, we support Dr. Vaurie’s application to suppress Lesson’s name, thereby validating the later name G. peruviana Lafresnaye as the species name and paytae as that of the subspecies. COMMENTS ON THE PROBLEM OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF LUCINA (MOLLUSCA: PELECYPODA). Z.N.(S.) 2001 (See volume 29, pages 158-161) By Harald A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) The basic problem with genus-group names published originally in connection with one or more illustrations, without the citation of any nominal species, has been the question of determining the type-species. In such cases it seems to me that the illustrations in question serve in lieu of a diagnosis, that is, they describe the taxon in the genus-group. 2. Thus, as Keen and Abbott point out (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 29 : 158, 1972), the determination of the type-species is to be guided by Article 69 (a) (ii) (2 and 3). Fur- thermore, as these writers state (/.c.), it is logical to consider the species names used by later authors in connection with the name Lucina, with or without reference to Bruguiére’s original proposal of the name, as being available under Article 69 (a) (ii). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3. Keen and Abbott (op. cit., p. 159) are therefore correct in stating that under a strict interpretation of the Rules the type-species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, under type designation by monotypy, would be Venus edentula Linnaeus, 1758, based on Lamarck’s citation in 1799 of this species under the name Lucina. This species was cited as the type-species by Fischer in 1887; among the authors who have followed Fischer in this usage in the last fifty years are: Oldroyd, 1924; Woodring, 1925; Gardner, 1926; Prashad, 1932; Thiele, 1934; Habe, 1951; McLean, 1951; Bodylevskiy et al, in Orlov, 1960. All these authors except Oldroyd cite Lucina as of Lamarck, 1799, and for them Venus edentula Linnaeus is quite naturally the type by monotypy; Oldroyd credits the name Lucina to Bruguiére. 4. Most modern workers have used Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, as the genus-name for the taxon in question following in general the work of Stewart (Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Spec. Publ. No. 3, pp. 175-178, 1930), who made a detailed study of the type-species of Lucina. 5. As Keen and Abbott point out (/oc. cit), the first valid use of subsequent desig- nation of a type-species for Lucina Bruguiére appears to be that of Schumacher, 1817, who cites Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species. This, as we shall see below, is the species that has by a wide margin been used most frequently by authors. 6. Ihave made a survey of the workers who in the last fifty years have accepted Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, as a validly proposed genus. Of these, one, Oldroyd, 1924, cites Venus edentula Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species, twelve use Venus pensylvanica as type-species, and only two, Chavan, 1937, 1969 and Palmer, 1958, use Venus jamaicensis Spengler, 1784 (V. pectinatus Gmelin, 1791); Palmer. however, qualifies her acceptance of this type-species with the statement that the “validation of the type-species should be established by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature”’. (Palmer, Geol. Soc. America, Mem. 76, pp. 85-86, 1958). 7. We see therefore that a great majority of malacologists and paleontologists have used Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as the type-species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797. The twelve mentioned above, listed chronologically, are: Stewart, 1930; Grant and Galo, 1931; Cox, 1931; Eames, 1951; Stephenson, 1952; Olsson, 1953, 1961: Abbott, 1954, 1958; Franc (in Grassé), 1960; Glibert, 1967; Bretsky, 1969 (doctoral thesis), 1971; Britton, 1970 (doctoral thesis), 1972; Hertlein, 1972. 8. As Keen and Abbott state (op. cit., 159-160) ‘‘usage from 1930 to the 1960’s {read: “‘1970’s’’] as well as legal considerations would favour the former [‘‘the accept- ance of L. pensylvanica (Linnaeus) as type’’] and “the burden of the nomenclatural argument would favour adoption of L. pensylvanica as type-species of Lucina”. Never- theless they plead for the adoption of L. pectinata (Gmelin) as type-species of Lucina on the simple grounds of expediency, because the “Treatise on Invertebrate Paleon- tology” will be a standard reference work for years to come. 9. I submit that this is a very dubious basis for upsetting common usage in the designation of a type-species. The acceptance of a nomenclatural usage that goes against general usage merely because it appears in a recent monographic treatment, could lead to such a decision being cited as a precedent for decisions on other appli- cations for the use of the plenary powers by the Commission, applications that cite other monographic treatments of possible unequal or doubtful competence. 10. The opinions of a single worker, merely because he has recently published a monographic treatment, should not outweigh both legal usage under recent changes in the Rules, and the evidence of overwhelming common usage, considerations that he refuses to accept. 11. I would, therefore, ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to act favorably upon petitions (1) and (2) as requested by Keen and Abbott (op. cit., p. 160); Further, to use its plenary powers: (1) to set aside under the plenary powers the fixation by subsequent monotypy of the type-specimens of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, as Venus jamaicensis Lamarck, 1801, and to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 (2) accept under the plenary powers as the type of Lucina Bruguiere, 1797, the nominal species Venus pensylvanica Linné, as being not only the first valid type desig- nation by subsequent designation, but also in harmony with current usage; (3) to place the generic name Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (4) to place the specific name pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Venus pensylvanica (type species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. By Sara S. Bretsky (Department of Earth and Space Sciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11790) and Joseph C. Britton (Department of Biology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas 76129) Keen and Abbott point out that this vexing question has become of particular con- cern since the publication of Chavan’s (1969) classification of the Lucinidae in the “Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology”’. Each of us (Bretsky, 1969; Britton, 1970) has recently completed a doctoral dis- sertation in which the Lucina problem is discussed. We agree with Keen and Abbott that designation of Venus edentula Linnaeus, 1758, as type would create confusion and instability in nomenclature [although this type designation was in fact accepted until comparatively recently by some authorities, such as Gardner (1926) and Thiele (1935), following Dall (1901)]. We also concur with them in regarding the designation by Schumacher (1817) of Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as the earliest fully accept- able explicit designation of a type for Lucina. We differ, however, in preferring that, if the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature rules on the matter, V. pensylvanica be chosen as type rather than Tellina pectinata Gmelin, 1791 (= Lucina jamaicensis Lamarck, 1801), the species which Chavan (1937-38, 1969) has regarded as type of Lucina, in disregard of certain provisions of the Code cited by Keen and Abbott. Our objections to designation of Lucina pectinata (Gmelin) as type of Lucina, and our preference for Lucina pensylvanica (Linnaeus), are based on the following consider- ations: 1. Keen and Abbott argue that Chavan’s enshrinement in the “Treatise” of L. pectinata as type of Lucina presents a taxonomic fait accompli whose acceptance may be convenient and prudent. But many neontologists—especially non-systematists— may not refer frequently to the “Treatise”. Abbott’s own neontological works, both technical and semi-popular (e.g., Abbott, 1954, 1958; Warmke and Abbott, 1961), have consistently accepted L. pensylvanica as type for nearly twenty years, influencing our own decisions about this taxonomic dilemma. As it happens, Keen’s authoritative handbooks have not had to resolve the problem, because no near relatives of either L. pectinata or L. pensylvanica occur in tropical west America (Keen, 1958, 1971). It may be argued, therefore, that accepting L. pectinata as type would be detrimental to the cause of nomenclatural stability. 2. Keen and Abbott’s prediction that the ‘‘Treatise’’ will serve as a “‘standard of reference . . . for the next several decades” perhaps involves an overestimate of the Jongevity of individual “Treatise” volumes. Although not all the planned volumes have yet appeared, two early volumes have already been extensively revised (Archaeo- cyatha, first version published 1955, revised 1972; and Graptolithina, first version published 1955, revised 1970). Revisions or supplements to the volumes on Bryozoa (1953), Coelenterata (1956), Ammonoidea (1957), and Miscellanea (1962) were in preparation in 1972 (fide Teichert, ed., 1972, pp. iv-v). Thus, opinions set forth in the Bivalvia volume may well be changed within fifteen to twenty years. 3. In suggesting that the description of Lucina Lamarck, 1801, be regarded as the first unequivocal proposal of the generic name and that L. jamaicensis, the sole species cited therein, be accepted as type by monotypy, Keen and Abbott fail to mention a prior ruling (ICZN Opinion 79) which holds this work invalid for type designations (cf. Chavan, 1952; Boss, 1966). 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. Although our unpublished dissertations have no formal standing in nomen- clature, and may not be readily accessible to systematists outside North America, they do provide detailed reviews of the Lucina problem which supplement the neces- sarily brief outline given by Keen and Abbott (see Bretsky, 1969, pp. 188-194; Britton, 1970, pp. 61-69). One dissertation has been provisionally accepted for publication (Bretsky, Palaeontographica Americana) and the other is in preparation for publication. Excerpts from both—implicitly or explicitly referring to L. pensylvanica as type of Lucina—have been published (Bretsky, 1970, 1971; Britton, 1972). Our disagree- ments with Chavan’s nomenclature have therefore been recorded, although not as fully or publicly as we might desire. 5. One argument for accepting L. pectinata rather than L. pensylvanica implies that choice between these species would make little practical difference to lucinid nomenclature, whereas acceptance of L. edentula would require rearrangement of genera within the family. Chavan (1937-38, 1969) has regarded the first two species as closely related phylogenetically, although generically distinct. In the “Treatise” classification, he places them in the Subfamily Lucininae (and L. edentula in the Sub- family Milthinae). Bretsky (1969, 1970, 1971), employing a broader definition of genera, places them in the subgenera Phacoides and Lucina, respectively, of the genus Lucina, thereby obviating the nomenclatural problem for all practical purposes. But Britton (1970) argues that the resemblances of L. pectinata and L. pensylvanica are (literally and figuratively) superficial, being primarily based on their similarity in having prominent “‘dorsal areas” (regions marked off by sulci and/or by differences in sculp- ture from the main body of the shell). Britton considers the L. pectinata group to be most closely related to taxa which Chavan refers to the Subfamilies Myrteinae and Milthinae. Bretsky is presently carrying out research on early Tertiary Lucinidae of the North American Coastal Plain in an attempt to clarify the relationships among the members of these taxa. It appears, therefore, that the unsettled phylogenetic position of L. pectinata is a further argument in favor of retaining L. pensylvanica as type of Lucina in the interest of nomenclatorial stability. Therefore, we propose that the Commission consider these actions and alternatives to those proposed by Keen and Abbott (1972): (1) act in favor of petitions 1 and 2 proposed by Keen and Abbott concerning A) the clarification of the issue of the “original list’? for a nominal genus that lacks nominal species, and B) the use of plenary powers to set aside Venus edentula Linnaeus, 1758, as the type-species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, by monotypy. (2) designate under the plenary powers the nominal species Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as the type-species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, being more compatible with current usage than Tellina pectinata Gmelin, 1791 (proposed as type-species by Keen and Abbott). (3) place the generic name Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, (gender: feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology [instead of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, (gender: feminine), type-species, Tellina pectinata Gmelin, 1791, as proposed by Keen and Abbott]. (4) place the specific name pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Venus pensylvanica (type-species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (5) place the specific name pectinata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Tellina pectinata on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES CITED AppoTt, R. T. 1954. American Seashells. Princeton, N. J., D. Van Nostrand Co., ne Aspott, R. T. 1958. The marine mollusks of Grand Cayman Island, British West Indies. Acad. Natur. Sci. Philadelphia, Monogr. \1 Boss, K. J. 1966. The Subfamily Tellininae in the Western Atlantic. The genus Tellina (Part 1). Johnsonia, 4 : 217-272, pls. 127-142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 Bretsky, S. S. 1969. Phenetic and phylogenetic classifications of the Lucinidae (Mollusca, Bivalvia). Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University. Ann Arbor, Mich., Univer- sity Microfilms, Inc. (Dissertation Abstracts, 70-2071) — 1970. Phenetic and phylogenetic classifications of the Lucinidae (Mollusca, Bivalvia). Bull. Geol. Inst. Univ. Upsala, N.S. 2 : 5-23 — 1971. Evaluation of the efficacy of numerical taxonomic methods. Syst. Zool. 20 : 204-222 Britton, J.C. 1970. The Lucinidae of the Western Atlantic Ocean. Ph.D. Thesis, George Washington University. Ann. Arbor, Mich., University Microfilms, Inc. (Dissertation Abstracts, 71-12, 288) Britton, J.C. 1972. Two new species and a new subgenus of Lucinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia), with notes on certain aspects of lucinid phylogeny. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool., no. 129, 19 pp. CHAVAN, ANDRE. 1937-38. Essai critique de classification des Lucines. Jour. Conchyliol. 81 : 133-153, 198-216, 237-282; 82 : 59-97, 105-130, 215-243 CHAVAN, ANDRE. 1952. Nomenclatural notes on carditids and lucinids. Jour. Washington Acad. Sci. 42 : 116-122 CHAVAN, ANDRE. 1969. Family Lucinidae Fleming, 1828. Jn Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N, Mollusca 6, Bivalvia, pp. N492- NS508. Lawrence, Kans., Univ. of Kansas Press Dati, W. H. 1901. Synopsis of the Lucinacea and of the American species. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 23 : 779-834, pls. 39-42 GARDNER, JULIA. 1926. The molluscan fauna of the Alum Bluff Group of Florida. Part Ill. Lucinacea, Leptonacea, Cardiacea. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 142-C, pp. 101-149, pls. 18-23 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 1924. Opinion 79, Case of Lamarck’s (1801a) Systeme des Animaux sans Vertébres KEEN, A. M. 1958. Sea Shells of Tropical West America. Stanford, Calif., Stanford Univ. Press Keen, A. M. 1971. Sea Shells of Tropical West America. Second Edition. Stanford, Calif., Stanford Univ. Press SCHUMACHER, C. F. 1817. Essai d’un nouveau systéme des habitations des vers testacées. Copenhagen, Schultz TEICHERT, Curt (ed.) 1972. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part E, v. 1, Second Edition, Archaeocyatha THIELE, JOHANNES. 1935. Handbuch der Systematichen Weichtierkunde 2, pt. 3. Amsterdam, A. Asher (1963 reprint) WarMKE, G. L., and Appott, R. T. 1961. Caribbean Seashells. Narberth, Penna., Livingston Publ. Co By Myra Keen (Department of Geology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, U.S.A.) I have been sent an advance copy by Sara Bretsky and Joseph Britton of comments they have submitted on the matter of Lucina and fixation of the type-species. To their general thesis I have no objection, for, as was clearly implied in our petition (Keen and Abbott, Bull. Z.N., vol. 29, pp. 158-161), personal preference favoured Lucina pensylva- nica as type. I would even hope that other malacologists would come forth and urge the Commission to adopt the alternative proposal. On one point made by Bretsky and Britton I feel I must comment: In their para- graph 3 they imply that Keen and Abbott favored the dating of Lucina from Lamarck, 1801. In the original petition, this was described as one of the procedures adopted by authors—actually, though he was not therein named, by Chavan. Opinion 79, cited by Bretsky and Britton, may not really apply here, for it dealt with fixation of type-species by Lamarck for genera proposed prior to 1801; i.e., genera of Linnaeus, Cuvier, et a/. Could earlier usages of the name Lucina be ignored, as Chavan proposed to do, then Lamarck’s 1801 proposal would be cleared and the sole species he cited 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature would be monotype. However, we could not concur with Chavan on the propriety of this. I hope that the Commission will not conclude that there is enough opposition to our petition to invalidate it, for it is an issue that needs a solution, even a fiat solution, but one that—it is to be hoped—will be acceptable to the majority of workers. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE NOMINA OBLITA IN THE FAMILY ECHENEIDIDAE (PISCES) Z.N.(S.) 1967 (See volumne 28, pages 168-170) By Nomenclature Committee, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists per B. B. Collette, Chairman (Fishes) Lachner (1971, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 28: 168-170) has requested the Commission to suppress two rarely used names of remoras in favour of the widely accepted Remora brachyptera (Lowe). An ad hoc nomenclature committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists has been formed to comment on the case: Mr. W. I. Follett, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco; Dr. C. Richard Robins, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami; Dr. Donald W. Strasburg, National Marine Fisheries Service, Bay Saint Louis, Miss.; and Dr. Bruce B. Collette, National Marine Fisheries Service Systematics Laboratory, Washington, D.C., Chairman. We support Lachner’s proposal to suppress Echeneis sexdecimlamellata Eydoux and Gervais, 1838 (not 1839, stated in Revue Zoologique, Oct. 1838: 256 that the last two parts of Magasin de Zoologie for 1837 were then on sale) and E. quatuordecim- laminatus Storer, 1839 (Aug. 1839, see Meisel, Bibliogr. Amer. Nat. Hist., 1926, 2: 465) and to place the name Echeneis brachyptera Lowe, 1839 (Oct. 1839, see Waterhouse, 1937, Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1937 (1): 79) on the Official List of Species Names in Zoology. Although remoras are not commercially important fishes, they have long attracted broad zoological attention because of their commensalism with other marine fishes and mammals. The nomenclature of the family is stable and should not be upset by two names that have remained virtually unused since their original description. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULING ON THE STATUS OF SPECIMENS IN THE THIENEMANN COLLECTION Z.N.(S.) 1968 (see volume 28, pages 171-172) By Hemming Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The shells of foraminifera, brachiopods, and molluscs, etc., etc., as well as innumer- able fossils of different kinds are based on less than whole specimens but are neverthe- less at any time accepted for selection as primary types. The only unfortunate thing in the problem as here presented seems to me to be that Fittkau & Lehmann (1970) have designated a “‘neotype” instead of following the normal procedure and make it part of the holotype. May I suggest that the label in question is altered accordingly, and that the whole case may then be dropped. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77 OPINION 998 GRYLLUS LOCUSTA SUCCINCTUS LINNAEUS, 1763 (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA): NEOTYPE DESIGNATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-specimen for the nominal species Gryllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the specimen described and figured by Dirsh, 1966 ( : 236, pl.2) is hereby designated to be the neotype of that species. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified; (a) Patanga Uvarov, 1923 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Gryllus Locusta succinctus Linnaeus, 1763 (Name No. 1977); (b) Valanga Uvaroy, 1923 (gender : feminine), type-species by original designation, Acridium nigricorne Burmeister, 1838 (Name No. 1978); (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) succinctus Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the combination Gryllus Locusta succinctus, as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (type-species of Patanga Uvarov, 1923) (Name No. 2499); (b) nigricorne Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen Acridium nigricorne (type-species of Valanga Uvarov, 1923) (Name No. 2500). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.)1761) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. V. M. Dirsh in May 1966. Dr. Dirsh’s application was sent to the printer on 13 June 1966 and was published on 20 December 1966 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23: 235-238. 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 further history may be found in a review of the case published by the Secretary of the Commission, Mr. R. V. Melville, on 8 August 1969 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26: 78-83. Of the three Alternative solutions put forward by Mr. Melville, Solution A received no support; Solution B was supported by P. T. Haskell, C. R. Hemming, G. Popov, P. M. Symmons, C. Ashall, D. Hollis, J. Roffey, M. J. Richards, A. B. Gurney and K. H. L. Key. Support for Solution C came from S. K. Tandon and B. Uvarov. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 June 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72) 10, in part 1 either for or against the use of the plenary powers in the present case, and in part 2 for one of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Alternatives A, B, and C set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26: 81-82. On Voting Paper (72)11 Commissioners were invited to vote either for or against the proposal relating to Linnaeus’s ‘“Centuria Insectorum” as set out in para. 14, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 26: 83. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 1 September 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: Voting Paper (72)10. Part 1. Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Munroe, Vokes, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Habe, Bonnet, Simpson, Corliss, Melville, Alvarado, Heppell, Erben, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Bayer, Forest, Willink, Binder, Starobogatoy, Ride Negative votes—none (0) Part 2. For Alternative A—none (0) For Alternative B—twenty-three (23): Munroe, Vokes, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Habe, Bonnet, Simpson, Corliss, Melville, Alvarado, Heppell, Erben, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Bayer, Forest, Willink, Binder, Starobogatov, Ride For Alternative C—none (0) Commissioners Brinck, Jaczewski and Kraus returned late votes in favour of Alternative B. Voting Paper (72)11. Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21): Vokes, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Habe, Bonnet, Simpson, Melville, Corliss, Heppell, Alvarado, Erben, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Bayer, Forest, Willink, Staro- bogatov, Ride Negative votes—one (1): Munroe. Commissioners Brinck, Jaczewski and Kraus returned late affirmative votes. In returning Voting Paper (72)11 Dr. Munroe made the following comment: “I consider authorship should except in very unusual circumstances be determined by what the published work says and not by esoteric information. Although works published under the names of Johansson and others of Lin- naeus’s students have often been attributed to Linnaeus, the practice is by no means universal. A number of works on Lepidoptera, for example, attribute such works to Johansson or ‘Linnaeus-Johansson’. The disadvantage of attributing them to Linnaeus is that every work ostensibly written by a possible Linnaeus student in the period in question must be regarded with skepticism and will require scrutiny of the ‘Official Lists’ and quite likely independent bibliographic or historical research. Even if the assertion quoted by Dr. Sabrosky is true (as many zoologists believe), the situation does not differ from that of numerous wealthy or influen- tial modern or near modern authors who have published under their own names work prepared by their paid professional assistants or by their students, graduate or undergraduate. I know of no instance in which the Commission has intervened to change the nominal authorship on these grounds. I consider this case too complex to be decided via a vote based on a subsidiary paragraph in an application on another subject. I consider it should be raised as an independent application and discussed on its merits. I move that the vote be deferred until this has been done”’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 In view of Dr. Munroe’s comment the Secretary decided to defer publication of the Commission’s decision on the authorship of ‘‘Centuria Insectorum” pending a more thorough examination of the evidence. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: nigricorne, Acridium, Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2): 629 Patanga Uvarov, 1923, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9)12: 362 succinctus, Gryllus Locusta, Linnaeus, 1763, Amoen. Acad. 6 : 398 Valanga Uvarov, 1923, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9)12: 345 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)10 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. 998. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London 10 January 1973 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 999 PLAUTUS BRUNNICH, 1772 (AVES): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Plautus Brunnich, 1772, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Alle Link, 1807 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Alca alle Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1979); (b) Pinguinus Bonnaterre, 1791 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Ogilvie-Grant, 1898, Alca impennis Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1980). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) alle Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Alca alle (type-species of Alle Link, 1807) (Name No. 2501); (b) impennis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Alca impennis (type-species of Pinguinus Bonnaterre, 1791) (Name No. 2502). (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Plautus Klein, 1760 (published in a non-binominal work) (Name No. 2008); (b) Plautus Gunnerus, 1761 (published in a non-binominal work) (Name No. 2009); (c) Plotus Gunnerus, 1761 (published in a non-binominal work) (Name No. 2010); (d) Plautus Brunnich, 1772 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 2011). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.)1911) The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Dean Amadon, Dr. Eugene Eisenmann, Dr. George E. Watson and Dr. Alexander Wetmore in November 1969. The application was sent to the printer on 10 March 1970 and was published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 110-112. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its 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. One correc- tion was made by Dr Eisenmann—the generic name Pinguinus is masculine, not feminine as stated in proposal (2)(b) Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On | June 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)12 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27: 111-112 At the close of the prescribed voting period on 1 September 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Munroe, Vokes, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Habe, Bonnet, Corliss, Heppell, Melville, Alvarado, Erben, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Bayer, Forest, Willink, Binder, Starobogatov, Ride Negative votes—none (0) Voting Papers not returned—one (1) : Simpson Commissioners Brinck, Jaczewski and Kraus 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: Alle Link, 1807, Beschr. nat.-Samml. Univ. Rostock 2 : 46 alle, Alca, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 131 impennis, Alca, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 130 Pinguinus Bonnaterre, 1791, Ency. Méth. (Ornith.) 1 : 1xxxiii Plautus Briinnich, 1772, Zool. Fund. : 78 Plautus Gunnerus, 1761, Trondheimske Selskabs Skrifter 1 : 263 Plautus Klein, 1760, Historie der Végel : 154 Plotus Gunnerus, 1761, Trondheimske Selskabs Skrifter 1 : 263 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Pinguinus Bonnaterre, 1791; Ogilvie-Grant, 1898, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 26: 562 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72) 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 decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 999. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 January 1973 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1000 MIMECOMUTILLA ASHMEAD, 1903 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA) : DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Mimecomutilla renominanda Bischoff, 1921, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903 (gender : feminine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Mimeco- mutilla renominanda Bischoff, 1921, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1981. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) renominanda Bischoff, 1921, as published in the binomen Mimeco- mutilla renominanda (type-species of Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903) (Name No. 2503); (b) purpurata Smith, 1879, as published in the binomen Mutilla purpurata (Name No. 2504). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.)1917) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. D. J. Brothers in February 1970. Dr. Brothers’ application was sent to the printer on 10 March 1970 and was published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 115-118. 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) and to seven entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 June 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72) 13 either for or against the pro- posal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27: 117. At the close of the prescribed voting period on | September 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Munroe, Vokes, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Habe, Bonnet, Simpson, Corliss, Heppell, Melville, Alvarado, Erben, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Bayer, Forest, Willink, Binder, Starobogatov, Ride Negative votes—none (0) Commissioners Brinck, Jaczewski and Kraus 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: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 Mimecomutilla Ashmead, 1903, Canad. Ent. 35 (12) : 327 purpurata, Mutilla, F. Smith, 1879, Descr. new spp. Hymenopt. B.M. : 190 renominanda, Mimecomutilla, Bischoff, 1921, Arch. Naturgesch. (A) 86 (4) : 508 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72) 13 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1000. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 18 January 1973 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1001 CERATINA LATREILLE, [1802-1803] (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Clavicera Latreille, April 1802, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803] (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Hylaeus albilabris Fabricius, 1793, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1982. (3) The specific name cucurbitina Rossi, 1792, as published in the binomen Apis cucurbitina, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2505. (4) The family name CERATINIDAE (correction of CERATINAE) Latreille, [1802-1803] (type-genus Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 471. (5) The generic name Clavicera Latreille, 1802 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2012. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.)1919) The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Howell V. Daly and Dr. O. W. Richards in February 1970. The application was sent to the printer on 10 March 1970 and was published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 121-122. 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 pro- posals were supported by Prof. Leland Chandler. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 June 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72) 15 either for or against the pro- posal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27: 122. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 1 September 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: Munroe, Vokes, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Habe, Bonnet, Simpson, Corliss, Heppell, Melville, Alvarado, Erben, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Bayer, Forest, Willink, Binder, Starobogatov, Ride Negative votes—none (0) Commissioners Brinck, Jaczewski and Kraus returned late affirmative votes. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Ceratina Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust Ins. 3 : 380 CERATINIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. ins. 3 : 380 Clavicera Latreille, 1802, Hist. nat. Fourmis : 432 cucurbitina, Apis, Rossi, 1792, Mant. Ins. 1: 145 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72) 15 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in the 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. 1001. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 January 1973 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1002 PHALAENA TINEA XYLOSTELLA, LINNAEUS, 1758: REFUSAL TO USE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE RULING.—(1) The application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a neotype for Phalaena Tinea xylostella Linnaeus, 1758 is hereby refused. (2) It is hereby directed that the nominal species Phalaena Tinea xylostella Linnaeus, 1758 is to be interpreted by reference to the lectotype in the Linnaean collection designated by Bradley, 1966, Entomologist’s Gazette 17 : 219. (3) The specific name xylostella Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Phalaena Tinea xylostella, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2506. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1906) The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr N. Wolff in October 1969. The application was sent to the printer on 18 December 1969 and was published on 5 June 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 60-62. 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. Comments supporting the proposal were received from E. C. Pelham- Clinton (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 130), J. A. Downes, K. Lindhart, and J. Jorgensen. An objection by J. D. Bradley and W. H. T. Tams (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 11-13) recommended that the Rules be applied and this was supported by K. Sattler, W. G. Tremewan and P. E. S. Whalley. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1972 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (72)5 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 60-62. A note accompanying the Voting Paper stated that a vote against this proposal would be taken as a vote for the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28: 13. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 10 May 1972 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—seven (7), received in the following order: Holthuis, Lemche, Eisenmann, Mayr, Bonnet, Tortonese, Ride. Negative votes—seven (7): Simpson, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, Brinck, Forest, Binder. On leave of absence—one (1): Monroe. Commissioners Kraus and Starobogatoy returned late negative votes. Professor Vokes did not vote. The following comments were made by Com- missioners in returning votes: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 Dr. E. Eisenmann (28.ii.72): “Admittedly usage throughout the twentieth century supports the Wolff proposal and the shift of the Linnaean names by Bradley dates to 1966—possibly in violation of Art. 23b. Prof. H. E. Vokes (28.ii.72): “I find the respective claims of the two proposals so at variance—and incomplete—that I do not feel able to reach any con- clusion. For example, if (as implied by Bradley and Tams) there is more than one specimen in the Linnaean collection, are they all of the same species as the “‘lectotype’’, or is the ‘‘Lonicera-feeding” form also represented? . .. etc. Hence I wish to refrain from voting either way”’. Prof. E. Mayr (14.iii.72): “In spite of the arguments of Bradley and Tams, I favor stabilization of the almost unanimous usage of the last fifty years or more”’. Prof. P. Brinck (5.v.72): “I cannot accept a moving of the name xylostella for a species not meant by the author.” Dr. W. D. L. Ride (10.v.72): “I vote in the affirmative despite the demon- stration by Bradley and Tams that the Linnaean specimen and description are against it, because I hold that the issue before the Commission is not one of the identity of the Linnaean specimen but whether stability and universality are served by a proposal which (a) avoids the transfer of a name from one species to another, and (b) retains for a well-known, economically important species the name universally applied to it.”’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in this Opinion: xylostella, Phalaena Tinea Linnaeus, 1758. Systema Naturae ed. 10. Holmiae. The following is the original reference for the designation of the lectotype for Phalaena Tinea xylostella Linnaeaus, 1758: Bradley, 1966, Entomologist’s Gaz. 17 : 219. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (72)5 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. 1002. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 June 1973 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME GALAXIAS DELFINI PHILIPPI 1895 (PISCES: GALAXIIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 1877 By R. M. McDowall (Fisheries Research Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand) It is here suggested that, because the name Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895, has not been used since 1899, the junior synonym G. platei Steindachner, 1898, should be retained; the latter name recurs throughout the literature on South American galaxiids since Regan (1905) to the complete exclusion of G. delfini. The details are as follows: In 1895 Philippi described two large galaxiids from southern Chile, viz., G. delfini and G. grandis. The name G. grandis is a junior homonym of G. grandis Haast, 1873 (=G. argenteus (Gmelin, 1789)). Furthermore, as Regan (1905) pointed out, G. delfini and G. grandis Philippi are synonyms. Later, Steindachner (1898) described another species from Chile as G. platei. In his revision of the family Galaxiidae, Regan (1905) states that Philippi had given the dorsal fin ray count of G. de/fini as eight and the anal count as 18; Regan thus noted that “If it were not for this, I should have no hesitation in regarding this species [i.e., G. de/fini] and G. platei as the same’. Thus Regan redescribed G. platei Steindachner as a good species and made no decision on the status of the earlier name, G. de/fini. Regan was incorrect in the figures reported from Philippi, who actually gave the caudal count as 18 and the anal count as 12. As such, Philippi’s description of G. delfini agrees with Regan’s redescription of G. platei; so the former name is the senior synonym. All subsequent authors have followed Regan (1905) in using the name G. platei Steindachner, e.g., Lonnberg, 1907; Eigenmann, 1909, 1910, 1921, 1928; Regan, 1913, 1915; Pozzi, 1945; Fowler, 1945; Mann, 1954; de Buen, 1959; Ringuelet and Aramburu, 1961; Ringuelet, Aramburu, and Aramburu, 1967; McDowall, 1969, 1971. The name G. del/fini is used only once as a valid species name (Delfin, 1899) following its original use by Philippi. In 1971 I reported that application had been made to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to declare G. delfini Philippi a rejected name, as under existing rules, it was by definition, a nomen oblitum. This application was held in abeyance pending further discussions on the use of Article 23(b), culminating in the 17th International Congress of Zoology at Monaco, 1972. In accordance with modifications to Article 23 it is therefore now requested that the name G. delfini Philippi, 1895, should be suppressed under the plenary powers as an unused senior synonym and placed on the Official Index of Rejected Names under Article 79b. Pending the Commission’s decision, G. platei must continue to be used as the valid name of the species in question. LITERATURE CITED BUEN, F. pe. 1959. Lampreas, tiburones, rayas y peces en la Estacion de Biologia Marine de Montemar, Chile. Revta Biol. mar. 9 (1-3) : 1-200 DeFIN, F. T. 1899. Catalogo de los peces de Chile (continuacion). Revta chil. Hist. nat. 3 (10, 11) : 153-161 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 EIGENMANN, C. 1909. The freshwater fishes of Patagonia and an examination of the Archiplata-Archelenis theory. Rep. Princeton Univ. Exped. Patagonia 3 (3) : 227-374 — 1910. Catalogue of the freshwater fishes of tropical and south temperate America. Rep. Princeton Univ. Patagonia 3 (4) : 375-411 —— 1921. The nature and origin of the fishes of the Pacific slope of Ecuador, Peru and Chile. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 60 : 503-523 —— 1928. The freshwater fishes of Chile. Mem. natn. Acad. Sci. 22 (11) : 1-80 Fow.er, H.W. 1945. Fishes of Chile—systemic catalogue. Apartado de la Revista Chilena de Historia Natural. Imp. et Imparcial, San Diego. 171 pp. Haast, J. von. 1873. Notes on some undescribed fishes from New Zealand. Trans. Proc. N.Z. Inst. 5: 272-278 LONNBERG, E. 1907. Fische. Ergebnisse Hamburg Magalhaensischen Sammelreise, 1892-3, 8 (6) : 1-16 McDowa Lt, R. M. 1969. Relationships of galaxioid fishes with a further discussion of salmoniform classification. Copeia 1969 (4) : 796-824 — 1971. The galaxiid fishes of South America. Zool. JI Linn. Soc. 50 (1) : 33-73 MANN, G. F. 1954. La vida de los peces en aguas chilenas. Universidad de Chile, Santiago. 342 pp. Puiuipp!l, R. A. 1895. Die Chilenischen Arten von Galaxias. Verh. dt. wiss. Ver. Santiago Chile 3 : 17-22 Pozzi, A. J. 1945. Sistematica y distribucion de los peces de agua dulce de la Republica Argentina. Gaea, B. Aires 7 : 239-292 REGAN, C. T. 1905. A revision of the fishes of the family Galaxiidae. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 2. : 363-384 — 1913. Antarctic fishes of the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 49 (2) : 229-292 — 1915. Antarctic fishes of the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition. Rep. scient. Results Scott. natn. antarct. Exped. Zoology 4 : 311-374 RINGUELET, R. A., and ARAMBURU, R. H. 1961. Peces argentinos de agua dulce: Claves de reconocimiento y caracterizacion de familias y subfamilias, con glosario explicativo. Agro 3 (7) : 1-98 RINGUELET, R. A., ARAMBURU, R. H., and ARAMBURU, A. L. DE. 1967. Los peces argentinos de agua dulce. Comision de Investigacion Cientifica. La Plata. 602 pp. STEINDACHNER, F. 1898. Die Fische der Sammlung Plate. FaunaChilensis. Zool. Jb. (Suppl.) 4 : 281-337 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature EMBLETONIA PALLIDA ALDER & HANCOCK, 1854, THE SPECIFIC NAME TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST THE NOMEN OBLITUM TERGIPES ADSPERSUS NORDMANN, 1845 (MOLLUSCA, OPISTHOBRANCHIA). Z.N.(S.) 2010 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen @, Danmark) The aim of this application is to seek confirmation of the protection of the specific name pallida Alder & Hancock, 1854 (Embletonia), which name has recently been set aside (Roginskaya, 1970) in favour of the totally forgotten name adspersus Nordmann, 1845 (Tergipes). 2. Nordmann (1845, Mémoir Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Pétersbourg 4 : 498) described Tergipes adspersus from the Black Sea at Odessa. The hidden place in which it was described left the name unnoticed until Roginskaya (1970, Malac. Review 3 : 167) brought it up anew, at the same time arranging that adspersus became used in a paper by Turpaeva (1969, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 189 : 415). 3. Alder & Hancock (1854, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2) 14 : 105) described what is agreed to be that same species from Birkenhead, England, as Embletonia pallida. This latter name has since been in general use for the species in question, a most widely distributed one all round Europe and even on the other side of the Northern Atlantic. Roginskaya cites, in her list of synonyms, the following usages: 2 adspersa, 25 pallida, 1 lacinulatus (misidentification), 2 mediterranea, 3 grayi, 1 ventrilabrum, and 4 bellulus (misidentifications). Taken in general this list has a definite under-representation of the name pallida, but even then, it shows the tendency of usage. 4. As the type localities for the two names are so widely apart, it might be considered that adspersus may perhaps have been given to another species. However, now it has been shown to cover the same species as pallida, it must be rejected. 5. My suggestion is that the Commission: (1) use its plenary power to suppress the specific name adspersus Nordmann, 1845 as cited in the combination Tergipes adspersus, for the purposes of the law of Priority but not for those of the law of Homonymy. (2) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name pallida Alder & Hancock, 1854, as cited in the combination Embletonia pallida; (3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name adspersus Nordmann, 1845, as cited in the com- bination Tergipes adspersus. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 POLYCERA FAEROENSIS—REQUEST FOR A RULING ON AUTHORSHIP AND DATE (GASTROPODA OPISTHOBRANCHIA). Z.N. (S.) 2013 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen @, Danmark) More than forty years ago, Lemche wrote a paper, ‘Gastropoda Opistho- branchiata’ for The Zoology of the Faeroes edited by R. Sparck. A couple of volumes were published at once (by Host & Son, Copenhagen), but some con- tributions to vol. III were delayed, and with them also those papers finished in time and intended for that part. It was only in 1971 that the whole volume ILL was edited by S. L. Tuxen and then duly published. No reprints had been offered for sale in 1929, but Lemche’s distribution of part LIII (his paper) to colleagues was effective, and the paper seems known to all concerned, including the description of Polycera faeroensis n. sp. 2. The next description of that species was by Odhner (1941, Géteborgs Vetensk. Samh. Handl. (6) 1 B 11 : 3) and he cited Lemche, 1929 as author and date. No other records have been published, but the species has now been found in several localities in the British Isles, and the question whether Lemche published or not in 1929 must be settled. Strict application of the Rules seems to lead to a dating of Lemche’s paper as of 1971, but in those cases in the literature where Polycera faeroensis is mentioned, it is with Lemche, 1929 as author and date. 3. I therefore ask the Commission to end the uncertainty by voting for one of the following alternatives: (A) Polycera faeroensis is to be regarded as validly published by Lemche, 1929; OR (B) Polycera faeroensis is to be regarded as having been published by Odhner, 1941. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PIERIS VIRGINIENSIS EDWARDS, 1870, (INSECTA: LEPIDOPTERA: PIERIDAE): A PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2027 By F. Martin Brown (Fountain Valley Rural Station, Colorado Springs, Colo., 80911, (U.S.A.) 1. This is a petition to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to conserve the name Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870, as it is represented by the neotype described by Brown (1973). 2. The original description of Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870, compares the insect with Pieris oleracea (Harris, 1829), and describes both sexes. The type material is stated as follows: ““Not uncommon in the Kanawha district [West Virginia] in the month of May, and there replacing oleracea. I have received from Mr. Saunders occasional specimens taken by him at London, Canada”. 3. The William H. Edwards Collection housed in the Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., contains ten specimens of virginiensis from the Kanawha River region of West Virginia and three specimens from Ontario, Canada, collected by Saunders. Although four males and one female from the Kanawha district bear the notation “‘type”’ in red ink on the pin labels, none of these can be considered for selection as lectotype. These marked specimens were collected during March and April, 1871. This was well after publication of the original description. All other Kanawha region specimens bear later dates of capture: 1872, 1882, 1884, 1891. The status of the Saunders specimens from Canada is doubtful. The manner in which Edwards noticed these in the original description allows two inter- pretations: some may consider these specimens syntypes; others may exclude them from being syntypes by Edwards’s later action. The first interpretation leaves the way clear to elect a Canadian specimen as lectotype. The second interpretation allows selection of one of the Kanawha specimens as neotype. It is this latter action that I propose to defend. 4. Itis clear from the name Edwards used for the taxon that he considered West Virginia and not Canada to be the typical geographic area for virginiensis. In a lengthy article Edwards (1881) leaves no doubt that at that time he had a double conception of virginiensis. On p. 97, under an earlier caption ‘4. VIRGINIENSIS”’ Edwards wrote: ‘‘... through Oleracea [a species-name, not a genus-name] hyemalis comes Virginiensis which along the southern limit has in its turns [sic] displaced Venosa, being in sequence of derivation the third winter form. But this has no second generation ...’’ Thus it is apparent that Edwards restricted his use of the species-name virginiensis to the single-brooded taxon related to P. napi oleracea with a range that overlaps the southern borders of the range of oleracea. On p. 98 of the same article Edwards wrote: ‘““We are now prepared to tabulate the American forms derived from Bryoniae, and I contrast them with the corresponding European forms:”’ In the table of American forms Edwards Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 grouped three segregates and their variants under bryoniae and kept distinct “4. SPECIES (Southern) VIRGINIENSIS, Edw.”’ 5. Inthe table just alluded to, Edwards disposes of the Canadian specimens of “‘virginiensis” included in his original description of virginiensis in this way: ae 2. Winter form OLERACEA HYEMALIS Harr. Oleracea, Bois. var. A. BOREALIS, Grote var. B. FRIGIDA, Scud. aberr. VIRGINIENSIS, Edw.” 6. In the light of this evidence, I believe that Edwards effectively removed the Canadian material from consideration as syntypical of the species-name virginiensis; retained the name virginiensis for a southern species differing from oleracea Harris: relegated northern material to an aberrational status that may or may not be acceptable biologically but is unequivocal nomenclatorially. 7. There are several reasons why a neotype is needed for the name Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870. First, the contradictory taxonomic uses of the name for northern and southern “virginiensis’ requires that the original use of the name in a specific sense be supported by a type. Second, confusion can arise between typical Pieris virginiensis and some North American forms of Pieris napi such as has occurred in listing materials from the Rocky Mountain region. Therefore, certain modern non-destructive means for establishing relationships, such as photography with wave-lengths not visible to the human eye, require that there be an official name-bearer for Pieris virginiensis. The only official name-bearers are types. Fourth, the loss of syntypical specimens that fulfil all of Edwards’ conditions concerning Pieris virginiensis require, in light of the above, designation of a neotype and conservation of the name. 8. To continue the concept of the author of the name virginiensis it is necessary to establish a neotype for the taxon. This is done in Brown (1973) where a specimen carrying the pin label ‘“‘Virginiensis O/Kan*. Ap. ‘71’ on which Edwards wrote in red ink diagonally in the lower left corner the word “type” is designated the neotype at the request of W. J. Holland. This is the specimen that is figured in color on Plate 34, figure 14, in Holland’s “The Butterfly Book’, 1930 edition. 9. The International Commission is therefore requested : (1) to set aside all designations of type specimen for the nominal species Pieris virginiensis Edwards, 1870, made prior to the Ruling now reques- ted and, having done so, to designate the specimen described by Brown, 1973, to be the neotype of that species; (2) to place the specific name virginiensis Edwards, 1870, as published in the binomen Pieris virginiensis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Brown, F. Martin. 1973. The types of the pierid butterflies named by William Henry Edwards. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 99 : 29-118, fig. 24. The neotype is designated on p. 101 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Epwarps, William Henry. 1870. The original description of Pieris virginiensis. Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 3 : 13-14 — 1881. On Pieris Bryoniae Ochsenheimer, and its derivative forms in Europe and America. Papilio, 1 : 83-99, pls. 2, 3 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 ONYCHOLYDA TAKEUCHI, 1938 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2028 By Karel Benes (Africkd 20, Prague 6), Tikahiko Naito (Entomological Labor- atory, College of Agriculture, University of Osaka Prefecture, Sakai, Osaka) and Teiichi Okutani (Entomological Laboratory, Faculty of Agriculture, Kobe University, Rokkodai, Nada-ku, Kobe). Takeuchi, 1938 (Tenthredo, 2 : 218) separated the genus Pamphilius Latreille, 1802 into three subgenera, namely Pamphilius s. str., Anoplolyda Costa, 1894, and Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938. This latter subgenus was established for eight Japanese and E. Asiatic species characterised by a sharp basal lobe of the tarsal claws, and Pamphilius sulphureipes Kirby, 1882, was designated as a type-species of Onycholyda. 2. Pamphilius sulphureipes Kirby, 1882 (described from one male labelled: “Amour”, Holotype deposited in the British Museum (Natural History), London) belongs to the histrio-inanitus group of Pamphilius with only a small rounded basal lobe of the tarsal claws and evidently does not belong to Onycholyda as defined by Takeuchi, 1938. 3. Inthe Takeuchi collection, deposited in the Entomological Laboratory, College of Agriculture, University of Osaka Prefecture, Sakai, Osaka), there are three females identified as sulphureipes Kirby by Takeuchi. Two females from Saghalien, initially described as Pamphilius viriditibialis var. aino Takeuchi, 1936, and later synonymized with P. sulphureipes Kirby (Takeuchi, 1938 : Tenthredo, 2 : 229) do not belong to Onycholyda as defined by Takeuchi, 1938, having only small rounded basal lobes to the tarsal claws and most probably belong to P. sulphureipes Kirby. One specimen from Sado Island has an acute basal lobe to the tarsal claws and apparently belongs to an undescribed species. 4. As follows from the above discussion, there is no doubt that the type- species of Onycholyda has been misidentified. According to Article 70a of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby asked to fix the type-species of Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938. P. sulphureipes Kirby, 1882 does not belong to this subgenus and the speci- men on which Onycholyda is based belongs to an undescribed species. A proposal is therefore made to fix as the type-species of Onycholyda, Pamphilius viriditibialis Takeuchi, 1930, the well known species, the type of which is preserved in the Takeuchi collection and the bionomics and juvenile stages of which are also known (Okutani & Fujita, 1956 : Sci. Rep. Hyogo Univ. Agric., 2(2) : 3-10). The fixation of the type-species of Onycholyda is so much more advisable as BeneS, 1972 (Acta ent. bohemosloy. 69 : 385) elevated Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938 to a generic level with about twenty Holarctic and Oriental species. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 1. October 1973. 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5 The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Pamphilius viriditibialis Takeuchi, 1930, to be the type-species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938 (gender : feminine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Pamphilius viriditibialis Takeuchi, 1930, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (3) to place the specific name viriditibialis Takeuchi, 1930, as published in the binomen Pamphilius viriditibialis (type-species of Onycholyda Takeuchi, 1938) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97 PSEDNURA LONGICORNIS SJOSTEDT, 1920 (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA): REQUEST FOR USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SET ASIDE ALL PREVIOUS LECTOTYPE DESIGNATIONS AND TO DESIGNATE AS LECTOTYPE A SYNTYPE HERE SPECIFIED. Z.N.(S.)2029 By K. H. L. Key (Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P. O. Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia) Sjéstedt (1920) described and figured under the name Psednura longicornis a new species of eumastacid grasshopper, on the basis of material collected in Australia by E. Mjéberg which he listed as follows: “Queensland, Atherton (Mai) 1¢ 12; Cap York 29 in spiritus (Sept.), Mus. Stockholm.” He did not designate a holotype. In 1921 Sjéstedt synonymised this nominal species with Moraba serricornis Walker, 1870. The material he then listed from Queensland was specified as follows (Sjéstedt 1921): ‘‘Atherton, Yarrabah, Cape York (Mjéberg) 1g, 29”. Comparing the 1921 with the 1920 listings, it is evident that the former is short of one Atherton specimen and one Cape York female, but includes a specimen from Yarrabah that was not listed in 1920. 2. The grasshopper collection in the Stockholm Museum was studied by the author in 1958 (Key 1973). It then contained two pinned (i.e. non-spirit) specimens labelled ‘‘Psednura longicornis” in Sjéstedt’s hand: a male from Atherton and a female from Yarrabah. Both specimens are labelled also “Queensl. Mjéberg’’, and the male is labelled “maj” (=May). The female bears the additional label ““Moraba serricornis Walk. det. Y.S.’’, and the male “—serricornis Walk.”, both in Sjéstedt’s hand. Neither bears a type label, but it is consistent with Sjéstedt’s practice for him to have removed such labels when he proposed the synonymy with serricornis. No trace could be found of a female from Atherton. There seems no doubt, from the use of the name Psednura longicornis, which Sjéstedt abandoned a year later, that the Atherton male and the Yarrabah female must have formed part of Sjéstedt’s syntype series. It seems likely that the 1920 listing of a female from Atherton was an inadvertent error*, and the locality that should have been cited for this specimen was Yarrabah. Otherwise we would have to assume (a) that the Atherton female was lost between 1920 and 1921 (the 1921 list cites three specimens from three localities, i.e. there could be only one from each, and the male from Atherton has been accounted for), and (b) that the Yarrabah female (which has not been in spirit) was overlooked in the 1920 listing. 3. Rehn (1952, p.287, footnote 382) selected as the “single type” of Jongi- cornis the “‘figured female” and assumed that “the female... from Atherton, Queensland, is the one that was figured’. As we have seen, there is serious doubt whether the Atherton female ever existed; if it did, it has apparently been lost. The Yarrabah female agrees with figures 4, 4a, 4b, and 4c of Sjéstedt’s *Sjdstedt’s 1920 paper contains several such errors, including mis-spelling of the generic names Oedaleus, Biroella, and Sphingonotus, and the incorrect assignment of plate 1, figures 5a and 5b to “Psednura gecko” on p. 5, whereas on p.67 they are correctly assigned to /ongicornis. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature plate 1 and may well have been the figured female, although there can be no certainty of this. To accept it as the lectotype would, however, be open to the formal objections (i) that its status as a syntype is only inferential, since it was not cited in the original publication, and (ii) that Rehn’s purported lectotype designation, with its reference to the “Atherton female’ was equivocal. It is questionable, therefore, whether a lectotype of /ongicornis can be considered to exist. 4. Key (1973) nevertheless provisionally accepted the Yarrabah female as lectotype pending a decision on the present application, which he stated was being made. He pointed out that, in addition to the formal objections to this specimen, there is a significant practical objection to the designation of females as primary types in this group of grasshoppers, because they are poor in diag- nostic features in comparison with males; he advocated use of the Commission’s plenary powers to designate the Atherton male syntype as lectotype, and gave the full label data for this specimen. Although the supposed status of Jongi- cornis as a junior synonym of serricornis did not remove the need for a diagnostic lectotype, Key (1973) has shown both of the pinned syntypes are in fact quite distinct taxonomically from the latter species, and that /ongicornis must therefore be reinstated. 5. Moraba serricornis Walk. is the type-species of Moraba by monotypy. Its status and lectotype have been discussed by Key (1973). The type-species of Psednura is Mesops pedestris Erichson, 1842, which was so designated by Kirby (1910). The status and lectotype of that species were discussed by Key (1969*, 1972). These two genera and their type-species could now well be placed on the appropriate Official Lists. 6. Inthe light of the foregoing, I request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) use its plenary powers to set aside all previous lectotype designations for the nominal species Psednura longicornis Sjéstedt, 1920, and desig- nate as the lectotype of that species the male syntype from Atherton preserved in the Stockholm Museum; (2) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) longicornis Sjéstedt, 1920, as published in the binomen Psednura longicornis ; (b) serricornis Walker, 1870, as published in the binomen Moraba serricornis (type species of Moraba Walker, 1870); (c) pedestris Erichson, 1842, as published in the binomen Mesops pedestris (type-species of Psednura Burr, 1903); (3) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Moraba Walker, 1870 (gender : feminine), type species by mono- typy Moraba serricornis Walker, 1870; (b) Psednura Burr, 1903 (gender : feminine), type species, by designa- tion of Kirby (1910), Mesops pedestris Erichson, 1842. * By an inadvertent error, Key (1969) in one place (p. 392, line 41) refers to the “holotype” of pedestris. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 REFERENCES Burr, M. 1903. Orthoptera. Fam. Eumastacidae. Genera Insect., fasc. 15, 23 pp. ERICHSON, W. F. 1842. Beitrag zur Insecten-fauna von Vandiemenland mit beson- derer Berticksichtigung der geographischen Verbreitung der Insecten. Arch. Naturgesch., vol. 8 : 83-287 Key, K.H. L. 1969. The primary types of the Australian Pyrgomorphidae (Ortho- ptera: Acridoidea). Aust. J. Zool., vol. 17 : 353-414 — 1972. A revision of the Psednurini (Orthoptera: Pyrgomorphidae). Aust. J. Zool., Suppl. Ser., No. 14, 72 pp. —— 1973. The primary types of the Australian Eumastacidae (Orthoptera: Eumastacoidea). Aust. J. Zool., Suppl. Ser., no. 19, 40 pp. Kirsy, W. F. 1910. A Synonymic Catalogue of Orthoptera, vol. III. Orthoptera Saltatoria. Part Il (Locustidae vel Acridiidae). London REHN, J. A. G. 1952. The Grasshoppers and Locusts (Acridoidea) of Australia. I. Families Tetrigidae and Eumastacidae. Melbourne Sj6stepT, Y. 1920. Results of Dr. E. Mjdberg’s Swedish Scientific Expeditions to Australia 1910-1913. 20. Acridoidea. Ark. Zool., vol. 12, part 20, 67pp. — 1921. Acridoidea australica. Monographie der bisher von Australien bekannten Heuschrecken mit kurzen Fihlern. K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl., vol. 62, part 3, 318 pp. WALKER, F. 1870. Catalogue of the Specimens of Dermaptera-Saltatoria in the Collection of the British Museum, Part III., pp. 425-604. London. 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CALYPTRAEA STRIATA GRAY, 1825 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER PLENARY POWERS Z.N(S.) 2030 By C. O. van Regteren Altena (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) J. E. Gray shortly described the species Calyptraea striata (1825, p. 407) without locality. Dr. J. D. Taylor, curator of the Department of Mollusca of the British Museum (Natural History), was so kind as to look for me in the collection of that Museum for the holotype or other specimens of that species, but in vain. I have not found the name Calyptraea striata Gray in other literature. 2. A year after Gray’s description Say (1826, p. 216) again published the name Calyptraea striata as a new species. Johnston (1934, p. 96); Roger (1936, p. 151); Morris (1951, pp. 140, 142, pl. 29 fig. 10); Abbott (1955, p. 170, pl. 2ir); Vilas & Vilas (1970, p. 61, pl. 7 fig. 8) mentioned this species as Cruci- bulum striatum (Say) and Richards in four publications (1936, pp. 1621, 1623, 1652; 1938, p. 1292; 1939a, p. 312; 1939b, p. 1896) as Crepidula striata Say. 3. Calyptraea striata Gray, 1825, may be regarded as an unused senior homonym of Calyptraea striata Say, 1826. Therefore, in the interest of nomen- clatural stability and to preserve the name Crucibulum striatum (Say, 1826) the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress both for the purposes of the Law of Priority and that of Homonymy, the name striata Gray, 1825, published in the binomen Calyptraea striata: (2) to place the specific name striata Say, 1826, as published in the binomen Calyptraea striata, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name striata Gray, 1825, as published in the binomen Calyptraea striata (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Appott, R. Tucker. 1955. American seashells (third edition). I-XIV, 1-541, figs. 1-100. pls. 1-40 Gray, J.E. 1825. A list of descriptions of some species of shells not taken notice of by Lamarck. Ann. Philos., (NS) 9 (=25): 407-415 Jacosson, Morris K., & WILLIAM K. Emerson. 1961. Shells of the New York city area. XVIII, 1-142, figs. JOHNSTON, CHARLES W. 1934. List of marine Mollusca of the Atlantic coast from Labrador to Texas. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist., 40(1) : 1-204 Morris, Percy A. 1951. A field guide to the shells of our Atlantic and Gulf coasts. I-XX, 1-236, pls. 1-45 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 RicHARDS, Horace G. 1936. Fauna of the Pleistocene Pamlico formation of the southern Atlantic coastal plain. Bull. geol. Soc. America, 47 : 1611-1656, 1 fig., pls. 14 — 1938. Marine Pleistocene of Florida. Bull. geol. Soc. America, 49 : 1267- 1296, 1 fig., pls. 14 — 1939a. Marine Pleistocene of the Gulf coastal plain: Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. Bull. geol. Soc. America, 50 : 297-316, pls. 1-3 — 1939b. Marine Pleistocene of Texas. Bull. geol. Soc. America, 50 : 1885-— 1898, pls. 1-3 Rocer, JuLIA ELLEN. 1936. The shell book. I-XV, 1-503, pls. I-VI, pls. 1-87 Say, THomas. 1826. Descriptions of marine shells recently discovered on the coast of the United States. J. Ac. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 6 : 207-221 Vivas, C. N. & Vitas, R. N. 1970. Florida marine shells. 1-170, map, figs. A-C, 2 diagrams, pls. 1-14 WEISBORD, NORMAN E. 1962. Late cenozoic gastropods from northern Venezuela. Bull. Amer. Paleont., 42(193) : 1-672, pls. 1-48 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SCHISTODERA COBB, 1920 (NEMATODA: ENOPLIDA), A REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION; OX YSTOMINA FILIPJEV, 1921 PROPOSED FOR THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.)2031 By W. D. Hope (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560) and D. G. Murphy (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 20014) Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 (:565) is the type-genus of the marine nematode super-family Oxystominoidea Chitwood, 1935. Filipjev (1921) proposed the name Oxystomina as a replacement of Oxystoma Biitschli, 1874 (: 270) which is preoccupied by Oxystoma Dumeril, 1806 (Insecta). 2. Among the several names that have been accepted by systematists as synonyms of 1Oxystomina, two have publication dates earlier than that of Oxystomina, 1.e., Acoma Steiner, 1916, and Schistodera Cobb, 1920. Acoma Steiner, 1916, is a junior homonym of Acoma Casey, 1890 and is, therefore, invalid. 3. Schistodera, which is an available name has been used on but one occasion since it was first published by Cobb (1920); this was in ““A Synopsis of the Families and Genera of Nematoda’”’ by Baylis and Daubney (1926). Here, both Schistodera and Oxystomina were listed as separate valid genera. Further, these authors were aware that Oxystoma Biitschli, 1874 was preoccupied, and they renamed the genus ““Oxystomina”’ with the note that ““The name Oxystomina has, we believe, been proposed to replace the preoccupied name Oxystoma. We are unfortunately unable to trace its author and date of publication” (p. 97). Thus, Oxystomina sensu Baylis and Daubney, 1926, is both a junior homonym and a junior synonym of Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921. 4. Since Baylis and Daubney’s publication, Schistodera Cobb, 1920 has been listed as a “junior” synonym of Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 in every instance where it has appeared in the literature (Coninck, L. A. de, 1965; Filipjev, I. N., 1934; Kreis, H. A., 1929; Schuurmans Stekhoven, J. H., 1935; and Wieser, W., 1953). That Oxystomina has been accepted as the valid name of the genus in question is further evidenced by the additional occasions (Allgen, C., 1932; Chitwood, B. G., 1937; Filipjev, I. N., 1927; Gerlach, S. A., 1954; Vitiello, P., 1970; and others) upon which it has been used, even though the name Schistodera was not cited as a synonym or otherwise mentioned. 5. In view of the general acceptance of Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 as the valid name of the genus in question by those concerned with the systematics of marine nematodes, and of the inconvenience that would result in changing the name of this genus the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is asked: 1The spelling of Oxystomina has been modified by Schuurmans Stekhoven (1935) and others to Oxystomatina. The latter name is an unjustified emendation and is, therefore, a junior objective synonym of Oxystomina. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103 (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Schistoder Cobb, 1920, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Oxystomina Filipjev (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy through Oxystoma Biitschli, 1874, Oxystoma elongatum Biitschli, 1874, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name e/ongatum Biitschli, 1874, as published in the binomen Oxystoma elongata[sic] (type-species of Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ALLGEN, C. 1932. Weitere Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Marinen Nematodenfauna der Campbellinsel. Nyt Magazine for Naturvidenskaberne, 70 : 97-198 Bay.is, H. A., and R. DAuBNey. 1926. A Synopsis of the Families and Genera of Nematoda. 277 pages. London : British Museum BUtscuu,O. 1874. Zur Kenntnis der Freilebenden Nematoden, insbesondere der des Kieler WHafens. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 9 : 236-292 CuiTwoop, B.G. 1937. A New Genus and Ten New Species of Marine Nematodes from North Carolina. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 4 (2) : 54-59 Coss, N. A. 1920. Contributions to a Science of Nematology, 1X: One Hundred New Nemas. Pages 217-343. Baltimore : Waverly Press Coninck, L. A. DE. 1965. Systématique des Nématodes. Traité de Zoologie, 4 (2) : 586-731. Fiuieyev, I. N. 1921. Svobodnozhivushchiya morskiya nematody okrestnastei Sevastopolya, Il. Trudy osoboi Zoologicheskoi Laboratorii i Sevastopol’skoi Biologicheskoi Stantsii Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk (2) 4 : 354-614 — 1927. Les Nématodes libres des Mers septentrionales appartenant a la Famille des Enoplidae. Archiv fuer Naturgeschichte 91, (6) : 1-216. — 1934. The classification of the free-living nemas and their relation to the parasitic nemas. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 89 (6) : 1-63 GerLACH, S. A. 1954. Brasilianische Meeres-Nematoden. I. Boletin do Instituto Oceanografico, 5 (1 and 2) : 3-69 Kreis, H. A. 1929. Freilebende Marine Nematoden von der Nordwestkueste Frankreichs (Trebeurden; Cétes du Nord), Capita Zoologica 2 (7): 1-98 SCHUURMANS STEKHOVEN, J.H. 1935. Nematoda: Systematischer teil V.B: Nematoda Errantia. Pages 1-173. Jn G. Grimpe and E. Wagler, Tierwelt der Nord- und Ostsee. Leipzig. ViTIELLO, P. 1970. Nématodes libres marins des vases profondes du Golfe du Lion. I. Enoplida. Tethys 2 (1) : 139-210 Wieser, W. 1953. Free-living Marine Nematodes I. Enoploidea. Jn Reports of the Lund University Chile Expedition 1948-1949, 10. Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, Ny Foljd Avdelning 2, 49 (6) : 1-155 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CERITHIUM BRUGUIERE, [1789], (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED PRESERVATION BY DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2032 By Richard (Joseph R.) Houbrick (Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting Center, Washington, D.C. 20560) Although the name Cerithium has been used by generations of conchologists, the genus has had a complicated taxonomic history and is difficult to define due to the problems in selecting and identifying a proper type-species. Com- prehensive reviews of the synonymic history of the genus have been made by Dall (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.: 363-369; 1907) and Wood (Contrib. from Geol. Dept. Columbia Univ. 22(1) : 6-10; 1910). 2. The name Cerithium was first used by Fabius Columna (De Aquatilibus Aliisque Nonnullis Animalibus, Roma, pp. 53; 57; 1616) and later adopted by Adanson (Histoire naturelle du coquillage Sénégal: 152-160; 1757) for a shell, “‘Le Cérite’’, from the mouth of the Gambia River on the west coast of Africa. Adanson identified this shell with Columna’s Cerithium. As Dall (1907, cited above) has pointed out, these authors were pre-Linnaean and not entitled to be cited in synonymy, except historically. 3. Bruguiére (Ency. Méth., 1: xv; [1789] was the first author to use the name Cerithium, but failed to list any species. He adopted the name Cerithium from Adanson (1757, cited above) whose work was non-binominal. Three years later, Bruguiére (Ency. Méth. 1 (2) 467-501; 1792) divided the genus into three unnamed groups on the basis of canal curvature. The first of these groups corresponds to what is now known as Rhinoclavis and the second to Cerithium, sensu stricto. Bruguiére listed 10 species in his second group, and named Adanson’s shell Cerithium adansonii, with “Le Cérite”’ cited in its synonymy. 4. Dall (1907, cited above) believed that the first binominal author to recognize the group commonly known as Cerithium was Martyn (Universal Conchologist 1, table, Nos. 12, 13; 1784), who named it Clava. Martyn used two species, the first of which is now known as a Rhinoclavis Swainson, 1840, and the second, a species of Pyrazus Montfort, 1810. However, Martyn’s Universal Conchologist is not consistently binominal and has been rejected by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Opinion 456, 1957). 5. Lamarck (Prodr. nouv. class.: 73; 1799) also selected an example for the genus and used a species of what is now known as Pseudovertagus Vignal, 1904 (P. aluco Lamarck). Link (Beschr. Rostock. Sammi.: 130; 1807) and Mont- fort (Conch. Syst. 2 : 511; 1810) followed Lamarck in their works. Two years after his first work of 1799, Lamarck (Syst. des An. sans Vert.: 85; 1801) selected several other species as examples of the genus and among these was Cerithium nodulosum Bruguiére, 1792. Schumacher (Essai: 223-224; 227-228; 1817) used the name Cerithium for two different groups, crediting them to Lamarck, and designating Cerithium aluco as the type for one and C. nodulosum for the other. Schumacher’s work was followed by later writers. Thus, for many years, malacologists, including Thiele (Handb. Syst. Weicht. 1 : 212-213; 1929) Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 and Wenz (Handb. Paldozool., 6, Gastropoda: 765; 1938), accepted Cerithium nodulosum as the type-species of the genus. Dall (1907, cited above) considered the type-species to be Lamarck’s (1799, cited above) first choice, which Dall identified as Clava (=Pseudovertagus) aluco Lamarck, 1799. However, Stewart (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 78: 355-356; 1926) noted that under the present rules of zoological nomenclature, Lamarck did not select a type. 6. The first valid subsequent designation of a type-species for the genus after Bruguiére was that of Montfort (Conch. Syst. 2: 510-511; genus 128 (figure); 1810), who chose Cerithium virgatum, a substitute name for Murex vertagus Linnaeus. Montfort’s figure of C. virgatum is a Rhinoclavis cited in the synonymy as Murex vertagus Linn. and Gmel. It is thus clear that the name Cerithium would replace Rhinoclavis Swainson, 1840 (Clava Martyn) unless Cerithium adansonii Bruguiére is accepted as the type-species!. 7. Cossmann (Essais de Paléoconchologie Comparée, Pt. 7, Paris, pp. 66-67; 1906) reviewed the problems of type-selection and indicated that most authors have cited C. nodulosum as the type-species. He reproduced Adanson’s figures of ““Le Cérite’’ but could not find specimens of it in the Adanson collection. On the basis of the figures, he considered Adanson’s shell to belong to the brackish water group Pyrazus and concluded that it could not be the type-species for a marine genus. Cossmann also mentioned that samples labelled ‘‘C. adansonii’”’ in the Paris collections did not resemble the “Le Cérite’’ figure of Adanson, and concluded that “‘Le Cérite’’ had been poorly figured and misplaced. 8. Wood (Contrib. Geol. Dept. Columbia Univ., 21 (1) : 6-10; 1910) also discussed the problems involved in type-selection and presented a detailed historical account of the diversity of opinion in this matter. She suggested that the genus name be referred to Columna and that the type be Columna’s Cerithium tuberosum. Wood contended that even though Columna’s description appeared before 1758, he did give the genus a name which conforms to the Linnaean system of nomenclature. She suggested that the rule referring to 1758 as the starting point be suspended in favour of referring the genus to Columna because this would have the practical advantage of settling the question of a type-species. Wood further suggested that if the rules discrediting pre- Linnaean descriptions were rigidly adhered to, the genus should then be re- ferred to Bruguiére, with C. nodulosum as the type-species. 9. Stewart (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 78: 355-356; 1926) proposed that C. adansonii Bruguiére should be the type-species by tautonymy because Bruguiére (1792, cited above) cites “Le Cérite’’ Adanson in the synonymy. Stewart admitted that this was a rather strained interpretation of tautonymy but considered that the acceptance of C. adansonii as the type-species was the only means of saving the old and familiar name of Cerithium from the synonymy of Clava (= Rhinoclavis). 10. Stewart’s interpretation was discussed by Woodring (Carnegie Inst. Wash., No. 385, (2): 332-333; 1928) who suggested that Adanson’s figures of 1This is not strictly correct. All the species listed by Bruguiére, 1792, are in principle equally eligible for subsequent designation as type-species unless referred to the genus conditionally or with doubt. R.V.M. 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature “‘Le Cérite”’ represented something similar to the Indo-Pacific species, Cerithium columna. However, C. columna is unknown in West Africa, the type-locality of Adanson. 11. Fischer-Piette (J. Conchyliol. 85 (2-4) : 103-377; 1942) resolved the uncertainty concerning the identification of Cerithium adansonii by recovering the shell figured by Adanson and showing that C. adansonii is the same species as C. erythraeonense Lamarck 1822. Cerithium erythraeonense does not occur in West Africa, but is limited in distribution to the Red Sea. It may have been accidently mixed by Adanson into his collection of shells from West Africa. Nevertheless, the actual shell, ‘““‘Le Cérite”, of Adanson, now known to be C. erythraeonense, may be considered the lectotype of C. adansonii. 12. Grant and Gale (Mem. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 1:756; 1931) noted that unless a suspension of the rules is obtained, the name Cerithium must be dropped in favour of Clava (= Rhinoclavis) because the method of type-designation on the basis of indirect virtual tautonymy is ineffective when opposed to a valid subsequent designation. 13. Martyn’s name, Clava, is unacceptable because his work is non- binominal. Clava is now Rhinoclavis Swainson, 1840. If Bruguiére’s C. adansonii is not accepted as the type-species, Montfort’s designation of C. virgatum must be selected as the type for the genus. However, Montfort’s C. virgatum is what has long been known as Rhinoclavis vertagus (Linnaeus). If Montfort’s type-species is valid, Cerithium would replace what is now known as Rhinoclavis, more confusion would be introduced into the nomenclature, and the genus Cerithium would be a different one from what was intended by the earlier writers on the subject. 14. Vignal (Jour. Conchyliol. 58 : 138-140; 1910) and Cossmann (Ann. Soc. Roy. Malac. Belg. 24 : 10; 1889) have used C. adansonii as the type-species for the genus. Stewart’s proposal of the acceptance of C. adansonii as the type-species by tautonymy has been accepted by more recent workers: Olsson and Harbison (Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Mongr. 8 : 281; 1953); Woodring (Geol. Survey, Prof. Pap. 306-B: 170-171; 1959); Hoerle (Tulane Stud. Geol. Paleont. 10 (1) : 3; 1972). Thus, the type-species of the genus Cerithium is, at best, a questionable species based upon Adanson. As Woodring (1959, cited above) has suggested, action by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature referring the genus to Bruguiére and validating Cerithium adansonii Bruguiére as the type-species is desirable. I hereby petition the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take the following action. (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the normal genus Cerithium Bruguiére, [1789], made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Cerithium adansonii Bruguiére, 1792, to be the type-species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Cerithium Bruguiére, [1789] (gender: neuter), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cerithium adansonii Bruguiére, 1792, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 (3) to place the specific name adansonii Bruguiére, 1792, as published in the binomen Cerithium adansonii (type-species of Cerithium Bruguieére, [1789]) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SCEPTROPHORUS FOERSTER, 1856 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA. CHALCIDOIDEA); PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)20331 By David Rosen (Department of Entomology, The Hebrew University, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel) 1. The genus Microterys was established by Thompson, 1875 (Scandinaviens Hymenoptera 4:155) [actual date of publication apparently 1876] who included in it 20 of the species described by Dalman, 1820 (Svensk. Vet. Akad. Handi. 41 : 137, 147-172) under Encyrtus Latreille, along with 4 new species. Thompson failed to designate a type-species, and his genus consisted of a rather heterogeneous assemblage of species, the majority of which have since been transferred to such diverse genera as Aphidencyrtus Ashmead, 1900; Aphycoides Mercet, 1921; Aphycus Mayr, 1875 [1876]; Blastothrix Mayr, 1875 [1876]; Epiencyrtus Ashmead, 1900; Metaphycus Mercet, 1917; Prionomytus Mayr, 1875 [1876]; Syphophagus Ashmead, 1900; Tyndarichus Howard, 1910; and Zeteticontus Silvestri, 1915. 2. Ashmead, 1900 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 22 : 390-394) designated Encyrtus sylvius Dalman, 1820, as type-species, thus restricting Microterys to Thompson’s “Section B” of the genus, comprising 8 species (Thompson, 1875, op. cit. : 157). He added other species, listing a total of 20 species in the redefined genus. 3. Mercet, 1921, in his celebrated monograph on the Encyrtidae of the Iberian Peninsula (Fauna Ibérica. Himendpteros. Fam. Encirtidos: 48-49), unfortunately chose to ignore Ashmead’s decision and designated Encyrtus aeruginosus Dalman, 1820, as type-species of Microterys Thompson, whereas Encyrtus sylvius Dalman, 1820, was considered by him as the type-species of the genus Encyrtus, which he (op. cit. : 34) credited to Dalman, 1820 (op. cit.), rather than to Latreille, 1809 (Gen. Crustac. Insect 4:31). Thus, Mercet applied the generic name “‘Encyrtus Dalman” to the group of species to which Ashmead restricted Thompson’s genus Microterys, whereas the generic name Microterys Thompson was used by him for the group of species otherwise mostly known as Syrphophagus Ashmead. 4. Although Timberlake, 1923 (Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 25 : 58-59) soon pointed out Mercet’s misinterpretation of the genera Encyrtus and Micro- terys, several European authors—most notably Nikol’skaya, 1952 (The Chalcid Fauna of U.S.S.R., Opred. Faun. S.S.S.R. 44 : 395, 403)—followed Mercet’s nomenclature. However, the majority of chalcidologists apparently accepted Ashmead’s interpretation of Microterys, and added numerous species from various Continents to the genus as defined by him [e.g. Gahan and Fagan, 1923 (Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 124 : 51); Ishii, 1923 (Bull Imp. Plant Quar. Sta. 3 : 70, 109); Compere, 1926 (Univ. Calif. Publ. Entomol. 4 : 33-44), 1939 (Bull. Entomol. Res. 30 : 16-20); Blanchard, 1940 (Anal. Soc. Cient. Argent. 130 : 123); and others]. 1This research has been financed in part by a grant made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, authorized by Public Law 480. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 5. That long controversy was finally settled by Ferriére, 1953 (Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol. Gesell. 36 : 16), who recognised Microterys Thompson as understood by Ashmead, with “Encyrtus Dalman et aut. nec Latreille’’ as a synonym. Ferriére (op. cit. : 34) also recognized Encyrtus aeruginosus Dalman as a species of Syrphophagus Ashmead, and quoted “‘Microterys Mercet et auct., pro parte’ as a synonym of that genus. Ferriére was soon followed by various European workers, including Erdés and Novicky, 1955 (Beitr. Entomol. 5 : 173) and Nikol’skaya (personal communication : an annotated volume of her 1952 monograph), who finally accepted the generic name Microterys Thompson as applied by Ashmead, with Encyrtus sylvius Dalman as type-species. 6. However, soon after consensus was finally reached in that nomenclatural dispute, Ferriére, 1955 (Boll. Lab. Zool. Gen. Agr Portici 33 : 361-363) made the rather unfortunate discovery that the old, cryptic genus Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856, was actually a senior synonym of Microterys Thompson, 1875 [1876]. 7. Foerster, 1841 (Beitrage zur Monographie der Pteromalinen Nees : 46) described his species Encyrtus sceptriger from a single male specimen, character- ized by rather peculiar antennae with a conspicuously elongated club. In 1856 (Hymenopterologische Studien 2 : 38-39) he established his genus Sceptrophorus, known to him from the male sex only, and designated both Encyrtus sceptriger Foerster, 1841, and Encyrtus paradoxus Dalman, 1820, as type-species. 8. Mayr, 1875 (Verh. Zool.-Bot. Gesell. Wien 25 : 702) [1876] regarded Sceptrophorus Foerster as a synonym of ‘“‘Encyrtus Dalman’’. He transferred (op. cit.: 756) E. paradoxus to the genus Bothriothorax Ratzeburg, 1844, and described the supposed female and male of E. sceptriger from Foerster’s material. Mayr’s description of his female of sceptriger (op. cit. : 704) agreed rather well with Foertser’s description of the male of that species, whereas his supposed male (op. cit. : 715) was quite different. 9. Ashmead, 1900 (op. cit. : 381) designated Encyrtus sceptriger as type- species of Sceptrophorus Foerster, which he recognized in the female sex, and placed in that genus also Psilophrys hyalinipennis Howard, 1885 (=Copidosoma gelechiae Howard, 1885) and Encyrtus solus Howard, 1885, which has subse- quently been transferred to the genus Psy/laephagus Ashmead, 1900 (see Peck, 1963, Canad. Entomol. Suppl. 30 : 385), as well as Encyrtus convexus Howard, 1896, the type material of which has since apparently been lost (B. D. Burks, personal communication). Girault, 1917 (Entomol. News 28 : 256-257) described a fifth species under the name Spectrophorus marilandicus, which he compared with so/us. That species is represented by the unique female type (U.S.N.M.), which is very poorly preserved, unrecognizable and cannot be placed generically (B. D. Burks, communication). This leaves only sceptriger, the type-species, in the genus Sceptrophorus Foerster. 10. Mercet, 1922 (Boll. R. Espafi. Hist. Nat. 22 : 296) redescribed Sceptro- phorus sceptriger from a single specimen he had received from Ruschka from Germany. He considered the specimen, with characteristic antennae, to be a female, and noted that all characters agreed with those attributed by Mayr to the female of E. sceptriger and not to the male of that species. However, Mercet pointed out that the specimen resembled a male in the shape and point 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of insertion of the antennae and in the truncated abdomen, and concluded that its true sex could not be ascertained. 11. Ferriére, 1955 (op. cit.) examined material reared by Schmutterer in Germany from Lecanopsis formicarum Newstead. He concluded that the specimens corresponding with the descriptions of Mayr and Mercet were males, as was Foerster’s type of Sceptrophorus sceptriger. The “‘male’’ described by Mayr apparently belonged to another species, probably of the genus Tricho- masthus Thomson, 1875 [1876]. The females, which were undoubtedly con- specific with the males of sceptriger, were found to belong to a species of Micro- terys, identical with or closely related to M. tessellatus (Dalman, 1820). Thus, Microterys Thomson was found to be a junior synonym of Sceptrophorus Foerster. Ferriére, however, did not follow the conclusions of his discovery to the bitter end. Rather than sink Microterys under Sceptrophorus, he preferred to use the combination Microterys sceptriger (Foerster). 12. However, Graham, 1958 (Entomol. Tidskr. 79 : 151, 154, 155) referred to Microterys Thomson as a junior synonym of Sceptrophorus Foerster. De Santis, 1963 (Encirtidos de la Republica Argentina, Com. Iny. Cient. Prov. Bs. As. 4 : 181) concurred and formally synonymized Microterys with Sceptrophorus. 13. Most subsequent authors have either ignored that action [e.g. Peck, 1963 (op. cit.); Tachikawa, 1963 (Revisional Studies on the Encyrtidae of Japan Mem. Ehime Univ. VI 9 : 223-235); Sugonjaev, 1965 (Trud. Nauchno-Issled. Inst. Zashch. Rast. 9 : 165-174); Azim, 1964 (Mushi 38 : 11-17); Annecke and Insley, 1971 (Entomol. Mem. S. Afr. Dept. Agric. Tech. Serv. 23 : 18-19); and others], or followed Ferriére’s precedent in preferring the generic name Micro- terys Thomson [see Bakkendorf, 1965 (Entomol. Medd. 30 : 151); Trjapitzin, 1968 (Trud. Vsesoyuz Entomol. Obshchest. 52:61), 1971 (Ibid. 54 : 131)). 14. Sinking the generic name Microterys Thomson under Sceptrophorus Foerster, although logical under the Law of Priority, would be most unfortunate from the point of view of stability. Although in dispute for some 30 years, the name Microterys has been in constant use by most chalcidologists for nearly a century. Over 100 species have been described under that name, and it has been very widely used in taxonomic, economic and biological litera- ture. The name Microterys Thomson served for the creation of the tribe Microteryni and the subtribe Microteryna in the family Encyrtidae (Erdés and Novicky, 1955, op. cit. : 167). On the other hand, Sceptrophorus Foerster has remained cryptic and misinterpreted during that long period, has been known from just a few male specimens of a single species, and has never been mentioned in the economic literature. Males seldom offer reliable generic characters in the Encyrtidae. 15. Therefore in the interest of stability of nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby asked to:- (1) use its plenary powers to supress the generic name Sceptrophorus Foer- ster, 1856, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the generic name Microterys Thomson, 1875 [1876] (gender : masculine), type-species Encyrtus sylvius Dalman, 1820, as designated Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 by Ashmead, 1900, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name sy/vius Dalman, 1820, as published in the binomen Encyrtus sylvius (type-species of Microterys Thomson, 1875 [1876]), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DROSOPHILA CARINATA GRIMSHAW, 1901 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE DROSOPHILA MERCATORUM PATTERSON AND WHEELER, 1942. Z.N.(S.) 2035 By H. L. Carson (University of Hawaii), D. E. Hardy (University of Hawaii), L. H. Throckmorton (University of Chicago), M. Wasserman (City University of New York) and M. R. Wheeler (University of Texas) The purpose of this appeal is to forestall an impending confusion in the literature in the matter of the name of anextensively-studied species of Drosophila. To this end, the undersigned recommend that the plenary powers of the Commis- sion be used to suppress the name Drosophila carinata Grimshaw, 1901, and that it be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. The reasons for requesting this action are enumerated briefly below; this is followed by a detailed discussion and bibliography. The basic facts 1. The specific name D. carinata was published by Grimshaw (1901) with an accompanying description. Type material consists of a single teneral female specimen collected in Kona, Island of Hawaii, in 1892. 2. Subsequent to this, this name was not used in the literature for 64 years. Hardy (1965) reports on his examination of the type specimen. He believed it to be conspecific with Drosophila mercatorum Patterson and Wheeler, 1942. 3. The name D. mercatorum was published at a time when there was a great intensification of work on Drosophila. The name has subsequently been used in 52 publications and it actually appears in the titles of 19 of these papers. 4. The name mercatorum has also been used to refer not only to a species but to an important subgroup containing three species of the rep/eta group of Drosophila. Although subgroup designations are informal, loss of usage of this designation would create confusion in referring to these flies. 5. Within D. mercatorum, two subspecies of very wide geographical distribution have been described. Loss of the name would result in confusion of nomenclature at this level also. 6. The species concerned belongs to a very difficult and interesting group of cryptic species, the repleta group of Drosophila. Because of the wide biological interest generated by this situation, much research has been done with genetic techniques to clarify the status of these species. This has resulted in a large literature. 7. In 1962, it was shown that the small amount of facultative partheno- genesis in this species could be built into a major mode of reproduction by artificial selection. This has led to a series of papers and the matter continues to be actively studied at the present time. 8. Because of the fact that no sure way exists to separate pinned specimens of females of the two subspecies of D. mercatorum from each other or from the full species, D. repleta or D. paranaensis, considerable question remains as to Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 the specific identity of the type specimen of D. carinata. We feel that it is unlikely that this situation can be clarified by further research on this specimen. Details of the case The repleta group of the genus Drosophila, subgenus Drosophila consists of more than 100 species which evolved in American deserts; many breed on or have an ecological relationship to various cacti (Patterson and Stone 1952). Wasserman (1963) has summarized data on 46 species; among them are some of the most remarkable cases of cryptic species known. These have been uncovered by a long series of hybridization, genetic and chromosomal studies pioneered by Patterson and Stone and their colleagues at the Univeristy of Texas in the 1940’s and continuing for the past 30 years. The extraordinary case of the mercatorum subgroup has been documented in an extensive series of papers beginning in the 1940’s with work in Brazil (DeBarros 1946, 1949a, b, c, 1950; Dreyfus 1948, 1949, 1957; Dreyfus and DeBarros 1947, 1948, 1949; Pereira and Dreyfus 1946) and culminated in the definitive papers of Wasserman (1954, 1960, 1962, 1963; Wasserman and Wilson 1957). The species name mercatorum has also been employed as a subgroup designation; it appears in approximately nineteen titles. In some cases, although the name is not in the title, a large portion of the paper is given over to a discus- sion of this species, its subspecies and its sibling species (e.g. Wharton 1944). Briefly, the situation is as follows. Despite past confusion because of the cryptic nature of the species and subspecies, four entities are now recognised in the subgroup: (1) D. mercatorum mercatorum Patterson and Wheeler, 1942; type from Santa Barbara, California. This was recognised as the type subspecies by Patterson and Stone (1952). This subspecies is found in the mountains from Chile north to California. It has been collected in Rochester, New York and is abundant in Hawaii. This subspecies has many remarkable characteristics. As Carson (1956) has pointed out, it seems to be on the way towards the evolu- tion of an invasive cosmopolitan habit. Furthermore, this subspecies has been used recently for an extended laboratory study of selection for parthenogenesis and the study of the origin of sexual isolation (Carson 1962, 1965, 1967a; Carson, Wei and Niederkorn 1969; Carson and Synder 1972; Doerr 1967, Henslee 1956, Wei 1968; Ikeda 1971, 1972). This work is in active progress at the present time. More than ten visible mutants exist; these and a number of parthenogenetic and wild stocks have been listed annually in Drosophila Information Service since about 1960. These references are not included in the bibliography. The species is a superb laboratory organism. The strong differences in its population structure from those found in D. pseudoobscura, D. melanogaster or D. robusta and the existence of parthenogenesis seem to assure that it will continue to be an important organism in future genetic research. (2) D. mercatorum pararepleta was originally described as D. pararepleta by Dobzhansky and Pavan (1943). Following Wharton’s (1944) studies, it was recognized as a subspecies of D. mercatorum. D. m. pararepleta is a chromo- somally highly polymorphic subspecies found in the tropical lowlands from southern Brazil to Colombia. It crosses easily with the much more widespread, D 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature essentially monomorphic subspecies D. m. mercatorum, producing fertile offspring. (3) DeBarros (1950) described D. paranaensis from Brazil. Dissection of the penis of the males (Wasserman, 1962) is the only satisfactory way known to separate this species morphologically from either subspecies of D. mercatorum. Wasserman (1962) shows that D. paranaensis is widespread in tropical America as far north as Mexico. Hybrids with D. mercatorum are partially inviable and wholly sterile in both sexes. (4) Carson (1967b) found that the extraordinary Drosophila parasite of land crabs in the West Indies, carcinophila Wheeler also belongs to the mercatorum subgroup: it is chromosomally more primitive than the other two species. This has led to further great biological interest in the mercatorum subgroup. The difficulties posed by routine taxonomic treatment of the rep/eta group in general and these species in particular are illustrated in microcosm by the situation in the Hawaiian islands. Three species of the rep/eta group, D. hydei Sturtevant, D. repleta Wollaston and the subject of this appeal, D. mercatorum Patterson and Wheeler are known from Hawaii (Hardy 1965). D. hydei is fairly easy to distinguish morphologically. The critical problem involves the great similarity of D. mercatorum and D. repleta. The former usually keys to D. repleta and females of these two species and of D. paranaensis DeBarros are virtually indistinguishable. Hardy (1965: 204) discovered the apparent synonymy which has prompted this appeal. Examination of the type of D. carinata Grimshaw (a teneral female specimen) in the British Museum led him to conclude that it was conspecific with D. mercatorum Patterson and Wheeler, 1942. In discussing the situation, however, he states: “This species is closely related to D. repleta Wollaston and I find no really satisfactory morphological characters for separating the Hawaiian specimens’. There follows a paragraph detailing his studies but he nevertheless concludes that the specimen is not D. repleta. The difficulties described by Hardy with the Hawaiian specimens have been widely encountered by all workers in the rep/eta group. The identification by morphological means of females, either in pinned or living condition, remains an essentially unsolved taxonomic problem. If offspring can be obtained from a female, the species of the mother can ordinarily be determined by the characteristics of her sons. Lacking this possibility, however, a single pinned female from Hawaii might be D. repleta, D. mercatorum (of either subspecies) D. paranaensis or, indeed a previously undescribed species. Even if future studies on the type specimen of D. carinata were to prove it to be synonymous with D. mercatorum, we appeal for suppression of the name. The grounds are that a complicated literature of over 50 titles would be thrown into confusion, as the name is employed for a subspecies, a species and a species subgroup. This literature is international in scope and has largely been devoted to the clarification of this extraordinarily complex and challenging biological situation. Action by the Commission would appear to be justified under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature; especially in view of the text of Article 79(b); Suppression of unused senior synonyms. Revisions in this Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 Article were ratified by the 17th International Congress of Zoology in September, 1972 (see Corliss, J. O. 1972 Science 178 : 1120). Stocks of D. mercatorum are now in use at the University of Minnesota (Carolyn Doerr), the University of Chicago at Chicago Circle (Irene Wei), the University of Michagan (Alan Templeton and C. F. Sing), the University of Hawaii (H. L. Carson) and Tokyo Metropolitan University (H. Ikeda). Active research programmes are under way in all of these laboratories. The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name carinata Grimshaw, 1901, as published in the binomen Drosophila carinata, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Brncic, D. 1957. Las Especies Chilenas de Drosophilidae. Santiago, Chile; Imprensa Stanley. 136 pp. D. mercatorum is listed Carson, H. L. 1959. Genetic Conditions which promote or retard the Formation of Species. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 24: 87-105. Discussion of repleta group, uses the name D. mercatorum — 1962. Selection for parthenogenesis in Drosophila mercatorum. Genetics 47 : 946 — 1965. Chromosomal Morphism in Geographically Widespread Species of Drosophila in the Genetics of Colonizing Species. Ed. H. G. Baker and G. L. Stebbins. New York: Academic Press. 173-192. Cites D. mercatorum and gives distribution map for D. m. mercatorum and discusses its tendency to become cosmopolitan — 1967a. Selection for parthenogenesis in Drosophila mercatorum. Genetics 55 : 175-171 — 1967b. The Association between Drosophila carcinophila Wheeler and its Host, the land crab Gecarcinus ruricola (L). Amer. Midl. Na‘. 78 : 324-343. Crab fly is described as a member of the mercatorum subgroup Carson, H. L., Wel, I. Y. and NiEDERKORN, J. A. Jr. 1969. Isogenicity in partheno- genetic strains of Drosophila mercatorum, Genetics 63 : 619-628 Carson, H. L. 1971. The ecology of Drosophila breeding sites. University of Hawaii. Honolulu: Harold L. Lyon Arboretum Lecture No. 2: 1-27. The crab fly, D. carcinophila Wheeler is discussed as a member of the mercatorum subgroup Carson, H. L.and Snyper,S.H. 1972. Screening for induced mutation by partheno- genesis in Drosophilia mercatorum. Egyptian Jour. Gen. Cytol. 1 : 256-261 CLayTon, F. E. and Warp, C. L. 1954. Chromosomal studies of several species of Drosophilidae. Univ. Texas Pub. 5422 : 98-105. Information on members of the mercatorum subgroup CLAYTON, F. E. and WASSERMAN, M. 1957. Chromosomal studies of several species of Drosophila. Univ. Texas Pub. 5721 : 125-131. Deals with D. mercatorum and D. paranaensis DeBarros, R. 1946. Especiacgao no sub-grup mercatorum. Gaz. Clin. (S. Paulo) 45 : 61-62 — 1949a. Um-caso de alteracao na proforcgdo entre os sexos, em D. mercatorum pararepleta. Cienc. e Cultura, 1 : 107-110 — 1949b. Aberragdes cromosOmicas em ‘D. mercatorum pararepleta’. 1. Aneu- ploides expontaneos. Rey. Brasil Biol. 9 : 365-376 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DeEBARROS, R. 1949c. Aberragdes cromosOmicas em ‘D. mercatorum pararepleta’. II. Uma longa duplicagéo expontanea adjacente e invertida no cromosoma X. Rey. Brasil. Biol. 9 : 463-466 —— 1950. A new species of the genus Drosophila, with discussion about speciation in the mercatorum subgroup. Rev. Brasil. Biol. 10 : 265-278. Describes D. paranaensis DoBZHANSKY, TH. and PAVAN, C. 1943. Studies on Brazilian Species of Drosophila. Bol. Fac. Fil. Cién. e Letr. U. Sao Paulo 36 : 7-72. D. mercatorum is discussed as D. pararepleta Doerr, C. A. 1967. Artificial selection for sexual isolation within a species. M.A. Thesis. Washington University St. Louis, pp. 32. Experimental work done entirely with D. mercatorum Dreyfus, A. 1948. Analysis of sexual isolation between D. paranaensis females and D.pararepletamales. Heredity2:278. Note: D.pararepleta was later described as D. mercatorum pararepleta. —— 1949. Analysis of sexual isolation between D. paranaensis and D. pararepleta. Proc. 8th Int. Congr. Genet. 1948 [Stockh]. Lund: issued as a supplementary volume of Hereditas, 1949 pp. 564-565. D. pararepleta later became D. mercatorum pararepleta —— 1957. Isolating mechanisms in the “‘mercatorum” subgroup of ‘Drosophila’. I. Sexual preference and sexual isolation. Rev. Brasil. Biol. 17 : 159-167 Dreyrus, A. and DeBarRos, R. 1947. Proporgao dos sexos (sex-ratio) no subgrupo ‘mercatorum (género D.) Gaz. clin (S. Paulo) 45 : 58-61 —— 1948. Mutations chromosomiques chez les hybrides de D. mercatorum pararepleta x D. paranaensis. S. Paulo med. 21 : 11-18 —— 1949. Sex-ratios chez certains hybrides interspécifiques de D. et son interpréta- tion par l’analyse des chromosomes salivaires. Ric. sci. 19 : 94-104. D. mercatorum subgroup hybrids GrimsHAw, P. H. 1901. Fauna Hawaiiensis 3 (1) : 51-73. One specimen collected in Kona Hawaii in 1892 was described as D. carinata Hsu, T. C. 1949. The external genital apparatus of male Drosophilidae in relation to systematics. Univ. Texas Publ. 4920 : 80-142. Plate XII. Figure 6 shows male genitalia of D. mercatorum HeENSLEE, E. C. 1965. Sexual isolation in a parthenogenetic strain of Drosophila mercatorum. Amer. Nat. 100 : 191-197 Harpy, D. E. 1965. Insects of Hawaii. Vol. 12. Diptera: Cyclorrhapha I, Series Schizophora, Section Acalypterae I. Family Drosophilidae. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaii Press. 814 pp. IkepA, H. 1971. Sexual behaviour in Drosophila. 1. Multiple copulation in Drosophila mercatorum. Jap. Jour, Genetics 46 : 419 —— 1972. Sexual behaviour in Drosophila. I. Mating competition between two strains of Drosophila mercatorum. Jap. Jour. Genetics 47 : 348 PATTERSON, J. T. 1943. The Drosophilidae of the Southwest. Univ. Texas Bull. 4313 : 7-203. There are 17 page references to D. mercatorum in the index. The species is figured in Color Plate V; a distribution map is given as well as col- lecting records in tables. PATTERSON, J. T. and Stone, W. S. 1952. Evolution in the genus Drosophila 610 pp. New York: Macmillan Co. Thereare31pagereferencesto D.m. mercatorumand D. m. pararepleta listed in the text. Pages 425-27 are devoted to the subgroup and there are two tables and one figure dealing with them PATTERSON, J. T. and WAGNER, R. P. 1943. Geographical description of species of the Genus Drosophila in the United States and Mexico. Univ. Texas Publ. 4313 : 217-281. Distributional information on D. mercatorum PATTERSON, J. T. and WHEELER, M. R. 1942. Description of new species of the sub- genera Hirtodrosophila and Drosophila. Univ. Texas Publ. 4213 : 67-109. Contains description of D. mercatorum on ppl. 93-94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 Pereira, E. N. and Dreyfus, A. 1946. Isolamento sexual no sub-grupo mercatorum. Gaz. clin [S. Paulo]. 45 : 54-57. Experiéncias sObre isolamento sexual no sub-grupo mercatorum (género Drosophila) Pipkin, S. B. 1956. Sex ratios in wild population of Drosophila. Genetics 41 : 656. Mentions mercatorum subgroup Prevosti, A. 1953. Two newly introduced species of Drosophila found in Europe. D.I.S.27:110. Records D. mercatorum from Spain. Stone, W. S. 1955. Genetic and chromosomal variability in Drosophila. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 20 : 256-270. Includes information on D. mercatorum StTuRTEVANT, A. H. 1921. The North American Species of Drosophila. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 301 : 150 pp. Méisidentifies D. mulleri in Hawaii, supp. 126-127 THROCKMORTON, L. H. 1962. The problem of phylogeny in the genus Drosophila. Univ. Texas Publ. 6205 : 207-343. Figures and discussion using the name D. mercatorum Warp, C. L. 1949. Karyotype variation in Drosophila. Univ. Texas Pub. 4920 : 70- 79. Contains information on D. mercatorum WASSERMAN, M. 1954. Cytological studies of the repleta group. Univ. Texas Publ. 5422 : 130-152. Extensive information on D. mercatorum — 1960. Cytological and phylogenetic relationships in the repleta group of the genus Drosophila. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 46 : 842-859. Contains information on D. mercatorum — 1962. Cytological Studies of the repleta Group of the Genus Drosophila: Ill. The Mercatorum Subgroup. Univ. Texas Publ. 6205 : 63-71. A thorough treatment of the mercatorum subgroup of species — 1963. Cytology and phylogeny of Drosophila. Amer. Nat. 97 : 333-352. Elaborate phylogeny includes mercatorum subgroup WASSERMAN, M. and Witson, F. D. 1957. Further Studies on the repleta group. Univ. Texas Publ. 5721 : 132-156. Considerable discussion of subgroup mercatorum (5 pages of material) Wel, Y. 1968. Mode of inheritance and sexual behaviour in the parthenogenetic strains of Drosophila mercatorum. M.S. Thesis Washington University. St. Louis, Missouri. pp. 63 Wuarton, L. T. 1943. Analysis of the metaphase and salivary chromosome morphology within the genus Drosophila. Univ. Texas Bull. 4313 : 282-319. Chromosomes of D. mercatorum described WuartTon, L.T. 1942. Ananalysis of the repleta group of Drosophila. Univ. Texas Bull. 4228 : 23-52. Information on D. mercatorum — 1944. Interspecific hybridization in the repleta group. Univ. Texas Publ. 4445 : 175-193. This paper deals mostly with the mercatorum—pararepleta situation WHEELER, M. R. 1949, The insemination reaction in intraspecific matings of Drosophila. Univ. Texas Publ. 4920 : 143-156. Includes information on D. mercatorum — 1960. A new genus and two new species of Neotropical flies (Diptera: Droso- philidae). Ent. News. 71 : 207-213. Describes D. carcinophila WHEELER, M. R. and HAMILTON, N. 1972. Catalog of Drosophila species names 1959-1971. Univ. Texas Publ. 7213 : 257-268. D. mercatorum is listed as a synonym of D. carinata ZIMMERMAN, E. 1943. Immigrant species of Drosophila in Hawaii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Proc. Haw. Ent. Soc. 11 : 345-350. Specimen obtained in Hawaii later referred to D. mercatorum 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature HYDROPHORUS FALLEN, 1823 (INSECTA, DIPTERA, DOLICHOPODIDAE): REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE DESIGNATION BY MACQUART, 1827 OF H. JACULUS FALLEN AS TYPE OF THE GENUS IN FAVOUR OF H. NEBULOSUS FALLEN IN ORDER TO CONSERVE CONSISTENT USAGE. Z.N.(S.) 2036 By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C., USA 20560), Harold Robinson (U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C., USA 20560), Hans Ulrich (Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum A. Koenig, Bonn, Germany) and Richard L. Hurley (Humboldt State College, Arcata, California, USA 95521) The genus Hydrophorus was erected by Fallén, 1823 : 2 with the following species included and without designation of a type-species: 1. H. regius (Fabricus) (Dolichopus); 2. H. binotatus Fallén; 3. H. litoreus Fallén; 4. H. nebulosus Fallen (page 3); 5. H. armiger Fallén; 6. H. rostratus (Fabricius) (Musca); 7. H. jaculus Fallén. 2. There is general agreement (Coquillett, 1910 : 554; Collin, 1940 : 268; Hardy and Kohn, 1964 : 254; Foote, Coulson, and Robinson, 1965 : 504; Hurley, 1965: 7; Robinson, 1970b: 56), insofar as workers have even considered the question of the type-species, that the first valid designation of a type-species of Hydrophorus was by Macquart (1827a : 249; 1827b : 37) in the statement “L’Hydrophore jaculus, qui est le type du genre...” 3. There is a case of misidentification in this type selection. Macquart divided the large and heterogeneous group known as Hydrophorus by Fallén and as “Medeterus Fisch.’ by Meigen into two parts (the spelling Medeterus is either an error or an unjustified emendation). Macquart used the two available names for the two parts, but he defined ‘““Medeterus” (instead of Hydrophorus) as having the “‘style des antennes dorsal” and used other characters which are not those of Medetera carnivora Fischer, 1819, the monotypical type of the genus Medetera Fischer, 1819. It is now recognized that Medetera carnivora Fischer (not mentioned by Macquart) and Musca rostrata Fabricius, 1775 (cited by Macquart as ‘‘Medeterus rostratus Fischer, Meigen’’) are synonyms of Medetera diadema (Linnaeus, 1767) [Musca]. Medetera diadema has an apical arista (see Lundbeck, 1912 : 329, fig. 102). AHydrophorus jaculus, now placed in Medetera, also has an apical arista (see Kowarz, 1877 : pl. 2, fig. 4) and clearly cannot have been the species so identified by Macquart. This error was already noted by Kowarz, 1877 : 39): ‘“‘Macquart... schliess sich wesentlich den Anschauungen Meigen’s an, zerlegte aber Medeterus Mg. in zwei Gattungen und wihlte fiir die Arten mit apicaler Fihlerborste irrthiimlich den Gattungsnamen Hydrophorus und fiir jene mit dorsaler Fiihlerborste den Gattungsnamen Medeterus’’. 4. Wahlberg (1844 : 110), disregarding Macquart’s action, was apparently the first to use Hydrophorus in the sense in which it is now used. His concept was followed by Haliday, 1851; Rondani, 1856; and Loew, 1857. Since the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zowlogical Nomenclature 119 time of Loew, the concept has been generally accepted and a voluminous literature has accumulated pertaining to Hydrophorus in that sense. Only Coquillett (1910 : 554) drew the strictly interpreted conclusions from Macquart’s type designation that Hydrophorus is a junior synonym of Medetera Fischer and that Hydrophorus of authors should be called Aphrozeta Perris, 1849-1850. 5. If Macquart’s type designation and, by consequence, Coquillett’s procedure be accepted, an old-established name of a large and world-wide genus, Hydrophorus of authors, would have to be discarded and replaced by an unknown name, which, apart from its author (Perris) and Coquillett, was never used. Furthermore, it would be necessary to change the name of the subfamily typified by the genus. The subfamily Hydrophorinae Lioy, 1864 (as Hydrophoriti) or Schiner, 1864 (as Hydrophorinae) is still in common use (Robinson, 1970a, 1970b) as the name of a sharply defined subfamily containing more than ten genera, and one distinct from the equally commonly used Medeterinae Lioy, 1864 (as Medeteriti). 6. Inasmuch as the concept of Hydrophorus has consistently and for so long a time been such as to include only the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of the originally included species (H. binotatus, H. litoreus, H. nebulosus), we believe that it is in the interest of taxonomic clarity and continuity to suppress Macquart’s type designation as being based upon a misidentification and to select a type-species from one of these three according to the provisions of article 70a of the Code. We therefore proposed that NV. nebulosus be designated type-species because out of these three species it is the one most easily recognized, one that represents well the traditional concept of the genus, and one that has never been in taxonomic confusion with any other species. 7. Therefore, in the interests of stability in nomenclature, the Commission is requested : (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823 made prior to the ruling now requested, and having done so, to designate Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallén, 1823, as the type-species of the said genus; (2) to place the generic name Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823 (gender : masculine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Hydrophorus nebulosus Fallén, 1823, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name nebulosus Fallén, 1823, as published in the binomen Hydrophorus nebulosus (type-species of Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; and (4) to place the subfamily name Hydrophorinae Lioy, 1864 or Schiner. 1864 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES CoLiin, J. E. 1940. Critical notes on some recent synonymy affecting British species of Dolichopodidae (Diptera). Ent. monthly Mag. 76 : 261-271 CoquiLLeTT, D. W. 1910. The type-species of the North American genera of Diptera. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37 (no. 1719): 499-647 Fasricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae. 823 pp. Flensburgi et Lipsiae FALLEN, C. F. 1823. Monographia Dolichopodum Sveciae. 22 pp., Lundae 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature FiscHER [DE WALDHEIM], G. 1819. Notice sur une mouche carnivore, nommé Medetére. Progr. Soc. imp. Natural, (Moscou) 15 Dec. 1819: 5-11, 1 pl. Foote, R. H., Coutson, J. R. and Ropinson, H. 1965. Family Dolichopodidae (Dolichopidae). Jn Stone, A., et al., A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Serv., Agr. Handbook no. 276 Hauipay, A. H. 1851. Family XXI. Dolichopidae. Jn Walker, F., et al., Insecta Britannica. Vol. 1 (=Diptera, Vol. 1): 144-221 Harpy, D. E. and Konn, M. A. 1964. Family Dolichopodidae. Jn Zimmerman, E. C., Insects of Hawaii, Vol. 11: 1-5, 10, 12-257, 421-422. Honolulu Hur.ey, R. L. 1965. A revision of the nearctic species of Hydrophorus (Diptera, Dolichopodidae). 187 pp., Ann Arbor: University Microfilms no. 65-7114 Kowarz, F. 1877. Die Dipteren-Gattung Medeterus Fischer. Verhandl. KK. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 27 : 39-76, pl. 2 LINNAEUS, C. 1767. Systemae naturae per regna tria naturae. Ed. 12 (rev.), Vol. 1, Pt. 2 : 533-1327. Holmiae Lioy, P. 1864. I Ditteri distribuiti secondo un nuovo metodo di classificazione naturale. Dispensa sesta. Ati Ist. Veneto di Sci., Lett. ed Arti (ser. 3) 9: 719-771. This part contains transactions of a meeting of 20 April 1864 Loew, H. 1857. Neue Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Dipteren. Ster Beitrag. Progr. K. Realsch. Mereritz 1857 : 1-56 LuNpBECK, W. 1912. Diptera Danica, Part IV. Dolichopodidae. 416 pp. Copenhagen Macquart, J. 1827a. Insectes Diptéres du nord de la France. Platypézines, etc. Rec. Trav. Soc. Sci. Agr. Arts Lille 1826/1827 : 213-291, 1 pl. — 1827b. Idem. Vol. 3: 159 pp., 4 pls. Lille. MEIGEN, J. W. 1824. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten. Vol. 4, xii + 428 pp., pls. 33-41. Hamm. Perris, E. 1849 or 1850. Lettre de M. Edouard Perris 4 M.*** sur une excursion dans les grandes Landes. Mém. Acad. Sci. Lyon. 2 : 433-506 Rosinson, H. 1970a. The subfamilies of the family Dolichopodidae in North and South America (Diptera). Papéis Avulsos de Zool., S. Paulo 23 : 53-62 — 1970b. Family Dolichopodidae (Dolichopidae). Jn Vanzolini, E. P., and PAPAVERO, N. A catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States. Dept. Zool. Secr. Agr., S. Paulo, fasc. 40 : 1-92 RONDANI, C. 1856. Dipterologiae italicae prodromus. Vol. 1, 228 pp. Parmae Scuiner, J. R. 1864. Catalogus systematicus dipterorum Europae. xii + 115 pp. Wien. With “Vorrede” dated “Mai 1864” a WAHLBERG, P. F. 1844. Nya Diptera fran Norbotten och Lulea Lappmark. Ofvers. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. (Stockholm) 1: 106-110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 OSCINELLA BECKER, 1909: PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (DIPTERA, CHLOROPIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2037 By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.) Between 1910 and 1912, Theodor Becker, great German Dipterist, published a world revision of the dipterous family Chloropidae in a series of monographs of the various faunal regions. The first (March 15, 1910) covered the Palae- arctic Region, and in this he proposed the generic name Oscinella for a large group of small and predominantly black grass flies hitherto known as Oscinis Latreille (1804). Oscinis technically could not be used because its earliest valid type designation made it a synonym of Chlorops Meigen (1803), which con- tains larger, usually yellow and black striped species in a different subfamily than Oscinella. The genus Oscinella, obviously polyphyletic, has been divided in recent years, but the name Oscinella has always been retained for O. frit (Linnaeus), the European frit fly, and its congeners. The literature on that one species alone, O. frit, is extensive because of its considerable damage to cereals, especially in the Palaearctic Region. 2. Aldrich (1929 : 91) designated O. frit as type-species in line with com- mon usage. Unfortunately, he overlooked the fact that only a few months before Becker’s important monograph on the Palaearctic Chloropidae, the name Oscinella appeared in a short paper on the results of an expedition to Ethiopia and East Africa (Becker, 1909). It appeared in the heading of a brief descrip- tion as “Oscinella deficiens nov. sp. [Oscinis olim]’’. The genus was not diag- nosed or described, and not even marked as new, as if the author assumed—as he no doubt did—that his monograph would appear first. Under the Rules of that day, however, Oscinella was at that point an available name by indication, and O. deficiens was fixed as its type-species. Aldrich recognized this soon after his designation of frit, and published a correction in 1930, but the change caused no difficulty for him and many others because they still used Oscinella in a broad sense that encompassed both frit and deficiens. 3. Duda, beginning in 1929 a series of papers on Chloropidae, proceeded to divide Oscinella, and his groups (Conioscinella, Tropidoscinis, etc.) have been accepted throughout the world, but he continued to base Oscinella s. str. on frit. The extensive economic literature naturally continued to use Oscinella for the frit fly and its relatives. 4. The writer early recognized (1941) that the type-species of Oscinella was O. deficiens Becker, but the point did not cause difficulty because at that period he continued to use Oscinella in a broad sense, following Aldrich and Malloch, and because O. deficiens was an African species and not yet within his purview. 5. The identity of Oscinella deficiens is unknown. On several occasions, both by letter and in person, the writer has searched for the holotype without success in the collection of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Some years ago, about 1948, Professor Séguy stated that the type had then been lost for some time. There is thus no way to be sure to what genus it belongs, but one can be certain from items in the brief description (“grisea, opaca”’, and “triangulo deficiente’’) that it does not belong in Oscinella as interpreted by Oscinella frit, i.e., frontal triangle distinct and polished black. Possibly it belongs in Duda’s genus Conioscinella. 6. If the type-species of Oscinella were to be maintained as O. deficiens, then the generic name Oscinella would be based on a species dubia, and, if one were to make the assumption mentioned in the preceding paragraph, it would be transferred to the genus now widely known as Conioscinella Duda (1929). The latter has had some usage in all faunal regions, but chiefly in taxonomic and faunistic works. By itself, it has no great claim to conservation, but a change of meaning of Oscinella would carry with it seeds of confusion. 7. As far as I know, there is only one name available to replace Oscinella for the frit group and associated species: Paroscinella Becker (1913), originally published as a subgenus of Oscinella for a small group of species that may not be congeneric or even consubgeneric with frit. With one exception in 1914, that name has never been used except in nomenclators and in my list of type- species of genus-group names in Chloropidae (1941). It is not presently accepted as a subgenus of Oscinella. 8. Becker based a new subfamily name Oscinellinae on Oscinella, and that has continued in use to the present time. Presumably this would not be affected by any change because Oscinella in either meaning would be a member of the same subfamily group. 9. In summary, maintenance of Musca frit as type-species of Oscinella would maintain continuity in the use of Oscinella in the extensive literature of applied entomology, avoid the confusion of change of meaning of Oscinella from the frit group to a generically different group of species, and avoid the weak and potentially dangerous situation of basing Oscinella on what is, presently at least, a species dubia. For these reasons, the Commission is requested: (1) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress all previous type fixations for Oscinella Becker, 1909, and to designate Musca frit Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species ; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Oscinella Becker, 1909 (gender: feminine), type-species Musca frit Linnaeus, 1758, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above; and (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology frit Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca frit (type-species of Oscinella Becker, 1909). LITERATURE CITED ALpRICH, J. M. 1929. Three new acalyptrate Diptera. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 31 : 89-91 (Oscinella, p. 91) — 1930. Notes on the synonymy of Diptera, No. 4. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 32 : 25-28 (Oscinella, p. 28) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 BECKER, TH. 1909. Collections recueillies par M. Maurice de Rothschild dans l'Afrique orientale anglaise. Insectes: Diptéres nouveaux. Bull. Mus. Natl. d’Hist. Nat. (Paris) 15 (3) : 113-121. (O. deficiens, p. 120) — 1910. Chloropidae. Eine monographische Studie, I. Teil. Palaarktiches Region. Archivum Zoologicum (Budapest) 1 : 33-174 SaBrosky, C. W. 1941. An annotated list of genotypes of the Chloropidae of the world. Amn. Ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 735-765 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LEUCOSPIS GIGAS FABRICIUS (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA, LEUCOSPIDAE) PROPOSED TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY _ Z.N.(S.)2038 By Z. Bouéek (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) Tourette’s summary of his French illustrated description of a Leucospid species (1780 : 746) reads “‘Cinips (lugdunaea) nigra, maculis luteis notata, Ffemoribus ...”’ but he failed to give it a clearly binominal name. This seems to have been evident already to Villers (1789 : 261) and to Gmelin (1790 : 2653), who proposed Leucospis gallica Villers and Cynipslugdunaea Gmelin, respectively, for Tourette’s species. Another name, Leucospis gigas, was eventually proposed by Fabricius (1793 : 245), although he at the same time referred to Villers’ publication, while the Gmelin paper was probably not known to him or somehow escaped his attention. From the way in which Fabricius quotes Villers’ descrip- tion it can be assumed that even in this case he had only some second-hand information or simply disregarded its validity. In any case, probably due to Fabricius’ authority, his name gigas has been in use ever since, while L. gallica Villers and L. /ugdunaea (Gmelin) were forgotten and since 1790 not used except in synonymy. Tourette’s paper is very rare and so the reviser of the group, Schletterer (1890), could not check it and probably assumed from Fabricius’ action that Tourette also used the name gigas, as may be seen from his citation in the synonymy (1890 : 203). This certainly contributed to the removal of any doubt about the validity of the name in subsequent years. I came across this problem when preparing a revision of the world species of the group. The purpose of my proposal is to maintain a name which has been in current use for 180 years, but the usage of which could be upset by a strict application of the Law of Priority. The International Commission 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) gallica Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Leucospis gallica; (b) Jugdunaea Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Cynips lugdunaea; (2) to place the specific name gigas Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Leucospis gigas, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. There are more than thirty papers in which the name Leucospis gigas F. has been used during the last fifty years (while the other two names have not been used at all), out of which I selected the following ten to satisfy the provisions of the Code: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 Berland, L., 1934a, Revue fr. Ent. 1 : 66-68 —— 1934b, Bull Soc. zool. Fr. 59 : 172-175 Bouéek, Z., 1959, Acta ent. Mus. natn. Pragae 33 : 438, 442-443 Bytinski-Salz, H., 1963, Acta ent. Mus. natn. Pragae 35 : 527-530 Ceballos, G., 1941-1943, Las tribus de los Himenopteros de Espafia. Madrid. (p. 180) Grandi, G., 1951, Introduzione allo studio della Entomologia. 2. Bologna (p. 1033) Grassé, P. P., 1951, Traité de Zoologie. 10, 1 : 933, 944 Giinther, K. and others, 1968, Jnsekten, Urania Tierreich. (p. 320) Nikolskaja, M. N., 1952, Opred. Faune SSSR, 44 : 79 — 1960, Fauna SSSR. Hymenoptera, 7, 5 : 197, 204-207 OTHER REFERENCES Fasricius, J. C. 1793. Entomologia Systematica. 2. viii + 519 pp. Copenhagen and Kiel GmeLIN, J. F. 1970. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae. | (5): 2225-3020. Leipzig SCHLETTERER, A. 1890. Die Gruppe der Hymenopteren-Gattungen Leucospis Fab., Polistomorpha Westw. und Marres Walk. Berl. ent. Z. 35 : 141-302, pls. 5-6 TOURETTE, DELA. 1780. Mémoire sur une nouvelle espéce de mouche, du genre des Cinips, trouvée dans l’enceinte de la Ville de Lyon. Mém. Mathem. Phys. 9 : 730-746, pl. 1 Vitters, C. DE. 1789. Caroli Linnaei Entomologia. 3. 657 pp., pl 8. Lyon 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MADIZA FALLEN, 1810 (DIPTERA, MILICHIIDAE): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2040 By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA‘) The dipterous genus Madiza was briefly diagnosed by Fallén (1810 : 19) based on three unnamed species (“‘Sp. Sv. 3’ = Species Sveciae 3). In 1820, Fallen described the genus with five new species: /aevigata, oscinina, glabra, pinguis, and sordida, in that order, with no clue as to which were the original three. No type-species was fixed. The first two species are now in the family CHLOROPIDAE, the third and fifth in MILICHIIDAE, and the fourth in AGROMYZIDAE. Strictly interpreted, Madiza is a chloropid, but through a combination of circumstances, overwhelming usage has long considered it a milichiid. The purpose of this application is to request that its milichiid placement be confirmed by designation, under the plenary powers, of Madiza glabra Fallen as the type-species. 2. Macquart (1835 : 584) proposed a new genus Siphonella for three new species and Madiza oscinina Fallen, which he designated as the type-species, and this genus is universally accepted in the CHLOROPIDAE. Rondani (1856 : 128), surely not in ignorance of Macquart’s proposal, designated M. oscinina as the type-species of Madiza, and this is, unfortunately, the earliest valid designation of a type-species for Madiza. It was accepted as such by Coquillett (1910), Malloch (1913), and a few other chiefly American authors, and it is the basis for the slight amount of usage of Madiza in the CHLOROPIDAE. On the other hand, Hendel (1903 : 251, 1910 : 307) concluded on the basis of his principle of elimination that M. glabra was the type-species and that the name Madiza belonged in the family miLicumpDAE (““Madiza Fall. 1810. Von den drei Arten wurden zwei durch Siphonella Macqu. 1835 absorbient, so dass der Fallensche Name fiir M. glabra zu gelten hat.””—Hendel, 1910 : 307). 3. In 1941 I published ‘An annotated list of genotypes of the Chloropidae of the world,” in which I concluded that ““Madiza and Siphonella are isogeno- typic and therefore absolute synonyms”’ because the oldest valid type designa- tions for those nominal genera had picked M. oscinina Fallén, a chloropid. Because Madiza was consistently used in Europe as a milichiid, I published a short explanation of my conclusion in an English journal, and this led to a mutually unconvincing exchange with J. E. Collin (Sabrosky, 1942, 1943; Collin, 1942, 1943). Collin argued that oscinina was not one of the three unnamed species upon which Fallén founded the genus in 1810, that it was obvious that the 1820 description was expanded “to include the newly dis- covered species oscinina’’, and, based on his particular interpretation of Opinion 46, that oscinina could not be the type-species of Madiza because “‘it does not agree with the original generic publication”, and that therefore Rondani’s 'Mail address: c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 30, Part 2. October 1973. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 designation of oscinina was invalid and Hendel’s selection of glabra must be accepted. Incidentally, in the face of Collin’s stout contention that oscinina was not one of the three original but then unnamed species, study of the Fallén Collection in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum in Stockholm in 1953 revealed an interesting bit of evidence. Under Madiza, the name labels for the first three species, /aevigata, oscinina, and glabra in the same sequence as published, are on the same kind of paper with the same now pale ink. The last two species, pinguis and sordida, are on a different kind of paper and in blacker ink. This bears out my belief that oscinina was indeed one of the original three species. Fallén must have added the last two between 1810 and 1820. 4. Nevertheless, regardless of the merits of the arguments of Sabrosky and Collin, the question of whether oscinina did or did not come under the original generic description is nomenclaturally irrelevant, and certainly so now that Opinion 46 has been cancelled and the new Code has more precise rules for genera proposed without species included by name. The case of Madiza falls under Article 69a(ii) of the Code: “If no nominal species were included at the time the genus was established, the nominal species-group taxa that were first subsequently and expressly referred to it are to be treated as the only originally included species’. Item (3) under that subsection specifies that “If two or more nominal species were simultaneously referred to a nominal genus, all are equally eligible for subsequent type-designation”. Hence the five species described by Fallén (1820) are to be treated as the originally included species. The first valid designation of an originally included species was that of Rondani (1856), who chose oscinina. Under the code, therefore, Madiza belongs in the family CHLOROPIDAE. 5. Taxonomists in general had not accepted Madiza as a chloropid, however, partly because Macquart had established the genus Siphonella for oscinina, and this was widely accepted, and partly, in this country, because of the prestige of Hendel and the acceptance of his conclusion that glabra was the real type of Madiza. With few exceptions, Madiza has been used for an extremely common genus in the family MILICHIIDAE. It has been used, for example in such general and influential works as Lindner’s “Die Fliegen der palaarktischen Region” (Milichiidae by W. Hennig, 1937), the Faune de France (Milichiidae by Seguy, 1934), faunal series in the USSR, and Kloet and Hincks’ “Check List of British Insects (1945)”. In‘*A Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico” (1965), I adopted Madiza in the MILICHUDAE in the interests of stability and universality, but with a note that Suspension of the Rules would be required. This same course is being followed in catalogues of Diptera of the Neotropical, Oriental and Ethiopian Regions now in preparation. 6. Madiza in the MILICHIIDAE has been the basis of the subfamily name MADIZINAE Czerny (1909 : 278) one of the two subfamilies into which the family is customarily divided (or three if one includes the CARNINAE). 7. Accordingly, the Commission is requested (1) to excercise its plenary powers to suppress all previous type fixations for Madiza Fallen, 1810, and to designate Madiza glabra Fallen, 1820, as type-species; 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic Madiza Fallén, 1810 (gender : feminine), type-species Madiza glabra Fallén, 1820, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology glabra Fallén, 1820, as published in the binomen Madiza glabra Fallén (type-species of Madiza Fallen, 1810); and (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology MADIZINAE Czerny, 1909 (type-genus Madiza Fallen, 1810). LITERATURE CITED CoLun, J. E. 1942. Entomologist’s Mon. Mag. 78 : 171-2 —— 1943. Ibid. 79 : 107-108 CoquiLLeTT, D. W. 1910. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 37 : 499-647 CZERNY, L., in CZERNY and Strost. 1909. Verh. zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien. 59 : 121-301 FaLLén, C. F. 1810. Specim. entomolog. novam Diptera disponendi methodum exhibens. 26 pp. Lund — 1820. Oscinides Sveciae. 10 pp. Lund. HENDEL, F. 1903. Wien. ent. Ztg. 22 : 249-252. —— 1910. Ibid. 29 : 307-313 Macquart, J. 1835. Histoire naturelle des Diptéres. Vol. 2, 703 pp. MALLocu, J. R. 1913. Can. Ent. 45 : 175-178 RoNDANI, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus. Vol. 1, 228 pp. Sasrosky, C. W. 1941. Annls. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 735-765 —— 1942. Entomologist’s mon. Mag. 78 : 169-171 —— 1943. Ibid. 79 : 106-107 - 2 Novi973 } » PURCH } / er Rant ae ee eitacery Life President Hon. ‘The Lord Hurcomb, GC. B., K.B.E. (Chairman) ewene The Members of the Trust The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C., C.H. Joresteeney. | rrancis J. Griffin, O.B.E. (Secretary and Managing _ “\E a fe) 71. Opi 80 Opi 82 oO 84 Oo 86 88 90 oe 92 95 97 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Calyptraea striata Gray, 1825 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers (C. O. van Regteren Altena) .. Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda: Enoplida): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (W. D. Hope and D. G. Murphy) Cerithium Bruguiére, 1789 (Gastropoda): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (J. R. Houbrick) Sceptrophorus Foerster, 1856 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposed suppre sion under the plenary powers (David Rosen) Drosophila carinata Grimshaw, 1901 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers (H. L. Carson, D. E. Hardy et al.) Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera): Request for suppression of Macquart’s designation of type-species (G. C. Steyskal, Harold Robinson et al.) . Oscinella Becker, 1909 (Insecta, Diptera): "Proposed designation of 2 a type-species under the plenary powers (C. W. Sabrosky) Pa Leucospis gigas Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Proposal to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Z. Boucek) Madiza Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed designation of a Ee species under the plenary powers (C. W. Sabrosky). . ; § Comments Commentaires: Lumbricus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (M. B. Bouché) .. Comments on the proposed designation of Chanda nama as type-species of Chanda (Pisces, Ambassidae) (Nomenclature Committee, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, per B. B. Collette, Chairman (Fishes) Comments on the application concerning ‘trace “fossils (E. Voigt; H. Lemche and E. L. Yochelson) . : Comment on proposal to suppress Anthus paytensis Lesson, 1837 (Aves) (Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress, per E. Eisenmann, Chair- man) Comments on the problem “of the ‘type- species ‘of Lucina (Mollusca) * (H. A. Rehder, S. S. Bretsky and M. Keen) . Comments on the proposed suppression of two 1 nomina 1 oblita in the family Echeneididae (Pisces) (Nomenclature Committee, American Society of Ichthyologists and Ba ees i per B. B. Collette, Chairman) ; Comment on the proposed ‘ruling on the status ‘of specimens in the Thienemann collection (H. Lemche) . © 1973. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshire Page 100 102 104 108 112 118 121 124 126 68 69 69 71 71 76 76 Pen Aetasnss Volume 30, Parts 3/4 28th June, 1974 pp. 129-235, 1 pl. T.P. X 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 me iesie he pubes in the Bulletin os Zoological Nomenclature re es A A Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases oa as re ‘ (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 c/o British Museum eat pent Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5B 1974 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) 7 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL = ea ie Grminetttar hs Goamsioaia ese. eae dent: Dt, W oe | ae eee alee : 1) SoS BE Es gees qi, ‘ “6 LS Sere Neh Uti of Gala Scie, Esibiton Rood, London, ors B. The Members of the Commission _ on) oe (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) toe ai Se ee ee a oe Naa eee Professor or Pe Buc (End CnvertesZolgisk nstitton, Land, Swede) (9 May 1958), Ti ee ae ee “(Canada Department fees uate Division Se Ottawa, aay Geneva, Switzerland) 21 May 1962) Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, oe geet cre 00) jut und 2 YG i Germany) _D. L. Rape (Western n Austr aan luseum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) ae eer so dea scat eat Psi ae Ag Cea Re, York, New York 10024, Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, S.W.7.) (30 Y ; ‘Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R) ite FB oe ech imag Te of Ml , Florida 33149, U.S.A.) Corts College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 |. ERBE? a ae Universitit Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 Professor (Naina Since sem, Ueno Park, Toky, Japan) (20 February 1972) ae te Mle Ao Lb STS BD) of. A. WILL tne Unsiute el Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical f. B. B. pa eS Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) f. G. Be IS ckieason (Maslin Netionad oP Histoire Notarele Paris, France) (28 September 1972). . Dupurs (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 30, Parts 3/4 (pp. 129-235 1 pl. T.P. X) 28th June 1974 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 [those marked with an asterisk involve the appli- cation of Articles 23(a-b) and (79)b]: (1) Suppression of Anas punctata Burchell, 1822 (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 794. (2) Validation of Acanthomys leucopus Gray, 1867 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1724. *(3) Suppression of Scoptes Hiibner [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1748. (4) Suppression of Argiope J. A. Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1842 (Brachiopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1798 (5) Designation of a neotype for Eschara spongites Pallas, 1766 (Bryozoa). Z.NAS.) 1826. (6) Designation of type-species for Latona Schumacher, 1817 (Mollusca, Bivalvia). Z.N.(S.) 1923. (7) Designation of a type-species for Pseudanisakis Layman & Borovkova, 1926 (Nematoda). Z.N.(S.) 2020. (8) Designation of a lectotype for Ammonites defossus Simpson, 1843 (Ammonoidea). Z.N.(S.) 2039. (9) Designation of a neotype for Apis rotundata Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2042. *(10) Suppression of Renoidea Brown, 1827 (Protozoa, Foraminifera). Z.N(S.) 2043. (11) Designation of type-species for Eriophyes Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Acarina, Eriophyoidea). Z.N.(S.) 2044. (12) Designation of a neotype for Geloius decorsei I. Bolivar, 1905 (Insecta, Orthoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2046. (13) Designation of a type-species for Lonomia Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2049. *(14) Suppression of PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 2052. | ees phi oo Bofart and. M, aoe Jae es eae emma ee comes sclateri Buller, i888 and es robuaa CO Coliven 1053) GR — (R. Se wishin and ofthe zebra banded duicker “FH. Commenton = the specific name or We Hi AsociD Comment on ie spi rane ono iva ita ite plenary power (R Vv. ; Mew ie) Sey na cpio ie pit ane pln Alera to the Official List of Generic! Names aimee: SMe is ion Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshire 4 } be » i Pa x a ae Ses af | ae eats yp ue oe ab ar ae ay ? *