u coun 54 Se rT ; eierontae oe pitee ieeet 2 ~ , a’? THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 31 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) JAIIDO. 1OOX FO var THI TATO“AEMOV! - Ww eegeO tabihO off : KO VOR2IVMOD JAMOITAMEATAL 3 - EAITAIOVEMON LORS a5 ie TMUJOV TABLE OF CONTENTS Opinion 1014. Okenia Menke, 1830 (Mollusca, Opisthobranchia): placed on the Official List of Generic Names sae ee Opinion 1015. Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834 (Insecta, Hymenop- tera): designation of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 1016. Cribrilina punctata (Hassall, 1841): designation of a neotype under the plenary powers a a3: aah mm Opinion 1017. Trychosis Foerster, 1868 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): designation of a type-species under the plenary powers ae Opinion 1018. Polanisa Walker, 1875 Geese Hoeneei sup- pressed under the plenary powers 5 ace Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1810 (Pisces, CARANGIDAE): request for sup- pression under the plenary powers. By E. Tortonese (Museo civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) Resubmission of Pan Oken, 1816 and Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia), proposed conservation under the plenary powers. By G. B. Corbet, J. E. Hill, J. M. Ingles and P. H. Napier (British Museum ones History), Cromwell Road, London S.W.7) Application for the suppression of Delphinus pernettensis de Blainville, 1817 and Delphinus pernettyi Demarest, 1820. By P. J. H. van Bree Unstituut voor Taxonomische Zodlogie, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands) ... Sesarma trapezium Dana, 1852 (Crustacea: Decapoda): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Lawrence G. Abele (Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33149, USA) Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1812 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): request for suppression under the plenary powers. By Gilbert L. Voss (Rosen- tiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33149, USA) Cyclogyra Wood, 1842 (Foraminiferida): proposal for suppression under the plenary powers. By Richard W. Ponder (Geology Department, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, Australia) ... i ee lil Page 13 16 19 22 24 2 29 44 49 51 34 1V PLATYSTOMATIDAE Schiner, 1862: proposed conservation as a family- group name over ACHIIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Diptera). By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricul- tural Research Service, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560, USA) and David K. McAlpine (The Australian Museum, 6-8 College Street, Sydney 2000, New South Wales, Australia) Phagocata cornuta Shishkoy, 1903 (Platyhelminthes: Turbellaria) request for suppression under the plenary powers. By R. Kenk (Depart- ment of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural ne Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 20560) am Report of the Special Session held at Ustaoset, Norway, September, 1973 Appendix A: The status of the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature Appendice A: Le statut de la Commission Internationale de Nomen- clature Zoologique International Union of Biological Sciences, Division of Zoology: Annex A.1. Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature os International Union of Biological Sciences, Division of Zoology: Annex A.2. Revised Statutes of the Division of Zoology ; Amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted since the XVI International Congress of lee: Washington, 1963 sb ee ate ae Amendements au Code International de Nomenclature Zoologique adoptés depuis le XVI ey International de Zoologie, Washington, 1963 The Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature La Constitution de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique Opinion 1019. Byrsocrypta Haliday, 1838 (Insecta, Hemiptera, APHIDIDAE): suppressed under the plenary powers ... 5 2 Page 59 62 66 70 74 75 79 78 91 90 117 Opinion 1020. Pleuroacanthites Canavari, 1883 (Cephalopoda, Lytoceratina): designation of a type-species under the plenary powers Bi Opinion 1021. Clinus aculeatus Reinhardt, 1837 (Pisces, Blennioidei): suppressed under the plenary powers ... : saa sa os Opinion 1022. Ctenodonta elongata Salter, 1873 yeni eievials suppressed under the plenary powers . : fs Opinion 1023. CASSIDAE (Mollusca) and CASSIDINAE (Insecta): placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology Opinion 1024. Epirhexis Cope, 1866 a a Salientia): sup- pressed under the plenary powers npr ie ane Opinion 1025. Salamandra tigrina Green, 1825 (Amphibia): grant of priority under the plenary powers over Gyrinus mexicanus Shaw, 1789 ee s 2 Request for the suppression of Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia) By Patrick J. Boylan (Leicestershire Museums, Art Galleries & Records Service, U.K.) and Margaret Green (Scientific Assistant, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Cicada cingulata (Fabricius) var. obscura Hudson, 1891 (Insecta, Order Hemiptera, Suborder Homoptera): proposed suppression as a nomen oblitum. By C. A. Fleming and J. S. Dugdale (New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Lower Hutt, New Zealand) ... : ee oe on Hymenosoma laeve Targioni Tozzetti, 1877 (Crustacea, Brachyura): pro- posed suppression under the plenary powers. By J. S. Lucas (James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, 4810 Australia ... Polygranima Chevrolat, 1837: proposed suppression under the plenary powers so as to conserve Leptinotarsa Stal, 1854 (Coleoptera, CHRYSOMELIDAE). By Richard E. White (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) and Richard L. Jacques, Jr. (Department of Biological Sciences, Fairleigh Dickenson University, Rutherford, New Jersey, U.S.A.) Vv Page 121 123 127 130 133 135 140 144 VI Dactylopius Costa, 1835 and Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers with proposed suppression of Diaprosteci Costa, 1828. By Douglass R. Miller (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department a Agricul- ture, Beltsville, Md 20705, USA) a: a ¥ : Coccus sativus Lancry, 1791, Coccus mexicanus Lamarck, 1801 and Coccus silvestris Lancry, 1791 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers. By Giovanni De Lotto as Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa) Request for a ruling on the authorship of Conus moluccensis (Mollusca, Gastropoda). By Walter O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Private Bag, Auckland 1, New Zealand) ch ae Sphex viatica Linnaeus: a problem of types and revisers (Hymenoptera, SPHECIDAE, OF POMPILIDAE). By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) ... Plea for the conservation of Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 and the suppression of Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802, Aphis pyri Kittel, 1827 and seven other binominals proposed by Kittel in 1827. By V. F. Eastop (British Museum (Natural History), London S.W.7)... Direction 106. Correction of the entry in Opinion 972, referring to the author of the specific name saportae which was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in AaoEY with the Name Number 969 : ae : Opinion 1026. Chrysopa hungarica eee 1899 ets nists tera): neotype invalidated es ; Opinion 1027. Sminthurinus Borner, 1901 (Insecta, oe cree designation of a type-species under the plenary powers Opinion 1028. Falco exilis Temminck, 1830 she tp vena under the plenary powers j Opinion 1029. Rana boans Linnaeus, 1758 (Amphibia): a on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : Opinion 1030. Cylindrella Swainson, 1840 pei sehen suppressed under the plenary powers . Page 146 154 156 159 164 179 182 184 186 188 190 Opinion 1031. Eostomias eximius Jordan & Gilbert, 1925 (Pisces): placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology Opinion 1032. Heniola Uvarov, 1940 (Insecta, Orthoptera): eae tion of a type-species under the plenary powers : cs Revised proposals on the validation of Aglaja Renier, 1807, Aglaja depicta Renier, 1807 and A. tricolorata Renier, 1807 (Mollusca, Opisthobranchia); neotype selection for A. tricolorata. By H. Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Kobenhavn @, Danmark) ... Proposed amendment to Opinion 908: correction of the type-species of Lilioceris Reitter, 1912. By R. E. White (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., c/o U.S.National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) ns Nes ne ae fe hs te Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Amphibia): holotype rediscovered. By C. Gans (The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.) Parnalius Rafinesque, 1815 (Insecta Rhopalocera): request for suppres- sion. By N. D. Riley and L. G. fe hae British Museum (Natural History), London S.W.7) Fe as fe Article 50 and questions of authorship. By C. W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., c/o U.S.National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) oe ee ane ots Hs LEPTOSOMATIDAE in Aves and Nematoda: request to place LEPTOSOMIDAE Blyth, 1838 and LEPTOSOMATIDAE Filipjev, 1916 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. By A. M. Sudilovskaia Zoological Museum of Moscow State pease ear and G. N. Kashin (Moscow) oot A Hee Amendments to an application on NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916(Gastropoda) proposed conservation under the plenary powers. By W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) ... = ots ate es = = ALCIDAE (ex ALCADAE) Anon., 1820 (Aves) and ALCEIDAE (ex ALCEDAE) Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia): request for addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. By G. N. Kashin (Moscow) VII Page 192 194 196 200 201 204 206 209 Vill Calomicrus taeniatus Wollaston, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By H. Silfverberg (Zoo- logical Museum of the University, Helsingfors, Finland) Proposed suppression of Xiphidium glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838 and Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838 and proposed addition of Orchelimum yulgare Harris, 1841 to the Official List (Insecta, Grylloptera). By V. R. Vickery (Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory, Macdonald Campus, McGill University, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Province of Quebec, Canada, H9X 3M1) Request for the suppression of Signiphora giraulti Crawford, 1913 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) as type-species of Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965. By B. R. Subba Rao (Commonwealth Institute of i eee London) Ate ide ee a a axe : Echis coloratus Giinther, 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed validation under the plenary powers. By A. F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London S.W.7) Application for a ruling on the availability of five specific names proposed as new for the genus Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871 (Nematoda) in “A preliminary key to British species of Heterodera for use in soil examination” by B. A. Cooper, 1955. By A. R. Stone A lags : Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts., England) .. Thrips rufa Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Thysanoptera, THRIPIDAE): proposed suppression under the plenary powers so as to validate T. rufa Haliday, 1836. By L. A. Mound & J. M. Palmer Saks Museum (Natural History), London S.W.7) : sad é Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCOLYTIDAE) By S. L. Wood (Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah) Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Dryocoetes Eichhoff, 1864 (Insecta, Coleone senile By S. L. Wood (Address as above) as : Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Liparthrum Wollaston, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCOLYTIDAE). By S. L. Wood (Address as in the Xy/eborus paper above) ee ‘ Page 216 218 221 223 225 228 230 232 234 Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCOLYTIDAE). By S. L. Wood (Address as in the Xy/leborus paper above) a oo i Clinocardium californiense (Deshayes, 1839) (Mollusca, CARDIIDAE): proposed validation under the plenary powers. By A. I. Kafanov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR) Plyctolophus ducrops Bonaparte, 1850 (Aves): proposed suppression under the plenary powers and validation of Cacatua ducorpsii Pucheran, 1853. By E. Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y.) and J. M. Forshaw ee Division ee Wildlife Research, Canberra, Australia) ; Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 and Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera, HYDROPHILIDAE): two cases of misidentified type-species. By A. Smetana (Biosystematics Research Institute, Canada Depart- ment of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada) ... Pseudoboa nigra (Duméril, Bibron & Dumeéeril, 1854) (Reptilia: Serpentes): proposed validation under the plenary powers. By A. F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London S.W.7) Platyrhacus Koch, 1847 (Diplopoda): petition for the designation by the International Commission of a type-species in harmony with accustomed usage. By R. L. Hoffman (Radford College, Radford, Virginia 24141) : ane his ‘ais oo sje 5% Index to Authors List of Decisions in this Volume Index to Key Names ... Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published in volume 31 Corrigenda Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the present volume was published Instructions to Binder 17 JAN a IX Page 238 240 244 247 a us ve 3 deers WORE Ee) Te are ot slanted) teen aN eM aa ee cy oo Girt sre 12 We oe 1 LENS ’ ‘alee de eirene) yl Poe pak | at Saeed bth ancasseltre date As hE rama needle sr rast eo REL. AN HES op gn EIT? oorarwerda manage Maine ee caa aI Me Orta sa peed Thrwer 4 eo agg rst Ata J APOE PAR are dee IRB Coat OO DT Joan cate) Ponpllettigeasa, Come Logis? nnd lence. wh oak eae eae? ee: Veemiciayr if) AR? cD wedarott {por ¢ > sh * : 7? . eo re Te f*, oe , & . : er eT. ee ee ee ey Bnet eer ts ae atau © Nie? mau i : <6 ley vit “43 Stes state Tee eee) > * LAL Re nade Aa thee D seid Me Tamereneeoey an akan $s) 7 aoe esha ap he Ay ate ™ ~—. Sifanm ice A eee Pegi, eet Le oa = fered Aan oy cae ope Sagalg a Re wOUebics preenipenen RO hie 82 “tans | aliases MRR. sli ik ace > ie ra = * Sec Lie a Por ai) Pata te aes ep — a ho ie at. © lo Le RES * AS a ae Me PACS 4 2 it Volume 31, Part 1 : ie 974 } 31st July 1974 pp. 1-64 : ; ; ~.? } THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS Announcement of Vacancy .. Se aS be Re £3 ] Obituary: Professor Doctor Tadeusz Jaczewski_.. of We 4 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 .. Be ae a l Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers incertaincases .. | (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 (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD 1974 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. W. D. L. Ripe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Secretary: Mr. R. V. MELVILLE (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, 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 Dr. Henning LeMcuE (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). Opisthobranchia; Phylogeny Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960). Echinoidea, Asteroidea Dr. E. G. MuNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography ad E. Binper (Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962). ollusca Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mollusca Dr. L. B. Hottuutis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea Professor Ernst MAyr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithology; Evolution Prof. Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. W. D. L. Rwe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) (President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SaBrosKy (U.S. 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 EIsENMANN (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.) (30 January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology Dr. Y. I, StaRoBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea Professor F, M. BAYER (Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972). Octocorallia; Systematics Dr. John O. Coruiss (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972). Protozoa; Systematics Prof. Dr. H. K. Ersen (Institut fiir Paldéontologie, Universitat Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology Professor T. HABE (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972). Marine Biology Mr. David HEpPeLL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH 1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972). Mollusca Dr. I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW75 BD) (20 February 1972). Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Instituto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. B. B. ROHDENDORE (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) (21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology Prof. G. BERNARDI (Museum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). Lepidoptera Dr. C. Duprus (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). Diptera Dr. T. Jaczewski (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (re-instated 5 November 1973). Hemiptera ; =i MFA \ BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 31, Part 1 (pp. 1-64) 31st July 1974 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCY A vacancy exists in the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature owing to the retirement of a member on reaching the age-limit. Nomi- nations for a candidate for election to the vacancy should be sent to the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, United Kingdom, not later than 1 August 1974. Candidates must be eminent scientists, irrespective of nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature. Nominations must state the name, date of birth, nationality, field(s) of specialisation and qualifications of each candidate, and the name(s) and status of the nominator(s). A list of the candidate’s publications and his curriculum vitae would also be helpful. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD United Kingdom 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 Secre- tariat 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) Preservation of Pan Oken, 1816 and Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 482. *(2) Suppression of Delphinus pernettensis de Blainville, 1827 and Delphinus pernettyi Desmarest, 1820 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1974. *(3) Suppression of Sesarma trapezium Dana, 1852 (Crustacea: Decapoda). Z.NAS.) 2016. 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature *(4) Suppression of Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1892 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). Z.N.(S.) 2041. *(5) Suppression of Cyclogyra Wood, 1842 (Foraminifera), Z.N.(S.) 2051. *(6) Suppression of ACHIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 2053. *(7) Suppression of Phagocata cornuta Shishkov, 1903 (Platyhelminthes, Turbellaria). Z.N.(S.) 2055. *(8) Suppression of Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1810 (Pisces, Carangidae). Z.N.(S.) 2058. (c) The following new applications have been received since the publication of Vol. 30(1) on 6 July 1973. Those marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23(a-b) and 79(b). *(1) Renoidea Brown, 1827 (Foraminifera): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2043 (Richard Ponder). (2) Eriophyes Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Acari): designation of type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2044 (V. G. Shevtchenko). (3) Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758: request for a ruling on the stem of Family-Group Names. Z.N.(S.) 2045 (V. D. Vladykov). (4) Pseudogeloius decorsei (1. Bolivar, 1905) (Insecta, Orthoptera, Pyrgomorphidae): establishment of a neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2046 (D. K. McE. Kevan). (5) Synalpheus neptunus (Dana, 1852) (Crustacea, Decapoda, Natantia): neotype. Z.NAS.) 2047 (A. H. Banner and D. M. Banner). *(6) Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837 (Coleptera, Chrysomelidae): proposed suppression under the plenary powers in order to conserve Leptinotarsa Stal, 1854. Z.N.(S.) 2048 (Richard E. White and Richard L. Jacques). (7) Lonomia Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed designation of type- species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2049. (Claude Lemaire). (8) Cyclogyra Wood, 1842 (Foraminiferida): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2051 (Richard Ponder). *(9) PLATYCHOEROPIDAE Lydekker, 1887 (Mammalia): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2052 (Philip D. Gingerich). *(10) ACHIIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2053 (George C. Steyskal and David K. McAlpine). (11) “Gen.n., sp.n.’’ after 1930: is the generic name available? Z.N.(S.) 2054 (Curtis W. Sabrosky). *(12) Phagocata cornuta Shishkov, 1903 (Platyhelminthes, Turbellaria). Z.N.(S.) 2055 (R. Kenk). *(13) Dactylopius Costa, 1835 and Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Homop- tera): proposed designation of type-species under the plenary powers with prone suppression of Diaprosteci Costa, 1828. Z.N.(S.) 2056 (Douglass R. Miller). *(14) Coccus sativus Lancry, 1791, Coccus mexicanus Lamarck, 1801, Coccus silvestris Lancry, 1791 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2057 (Giovanni De Lotto). *(15) Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1810 (Pisces, Carangidae): request for suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2058 (Enrico Tortonese). (16) Conus moluccensis (Mollusca, Gastropoda): request for a ruling on the author- ship. Z.N.(S.) 2059 (Walter O. Cernohorsky). *(17) Xiphidium glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838 and Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet- Serville, 1838 (Insecta, Grylloptera): proposed suppression under the plenary powers, with the proposed addition of Orchelimum vulgare Harris, 1848 to the Official List. Z.N.(S.) 2060 (V. R. Vickery). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 (18) Sphex viatica Linnaeus: a problem of types and revisers (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae or Pompilidae). Z.N.(S.) 2061 (Curtis W. Sabrosky). (19) Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 (Insecta, Homoptera): request for the conservation, with the suppression of Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802, Aphis pyri Kittel, 1827 and seven other binominals proposed by Kittel in 1827. Z.NAS.) 2062 (V. F. Eastop). (20) Signiphora giraulti Crawford, 1913 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): request for sup- pression as type-species of Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965. Z.N.(S.) 2063. (B. R. Subba Rao). *(21) Echis coloratus Giinther, 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed validation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2064 (Andrew F. Stimson). (22) Revision of Lisbon Opinions? Z.N.(S.) 2065 (R. V. Melville). (23) Heterodera (Nematoda): application for a Ruling on the availability of five specific names proposed as new for the genus in “A preliminary key to British species of Heterodera for use in soil examination” by B. A. Cooper, 1955. Z.N.(S.) 2066 (A. R. Stone). (24) Thrips rufa Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Thysanoptera, Thripidae): proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers so as to validate Thrips rufa Haliday, 1836. Z.N.(S.) 2067 (L. A. Mound and J. M. Palmer). MARGARET GREEN c/o British Museum (Natural History), Scientific Assistant Cromwell Road, International Commission on London, SW7 5BD, England Zoological Nomenclature 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OBITUARY : PROFESSOR DOCTOR TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI By Maciej Mroczkowski Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski—an eminent Polish zoogeographer and taxonomist and specialist in aquatic Hemiptera (Heteroptera)—was born in St. Petersburg on 1 February 1899 into a Polish family and died on 25 February 1974. He studied at the Universities in St. Petersburg and Warsaw, received his doctor’s degree in 1925 at the University of Poznan, and was habilitated in 1936 at the University of Warsaw. For a number of years Professor Jaczewski held the post of keeper and director of the Polish Zoological Museum, later transformed into the Institute of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. He also took part in Polish zoological expeditions to Brazil, Mexico and Canada. During the Second World War Professor Jaczewski took an active part in the Underground Movement, participated in a number of diversive operations against the German troops in Poland, and finally took part in the Warsaw Uprising in 1944 for which he was decorated with the Cross of Valour. From 1948 on, as Professor at the University of Warsaw, he took up teaching and in 1950-52 held the post of Prorector of the University. For his teaching activity he was decorated with the crosses of Officer and Commander of the order of Polonia Restituta. A full member of the Warsaw Scientific Society and an associate member of the Polish Academy of Sciences as well as a member of the Academy of Zoology (India), he was elected in 1958 as a member of the Permanent Com- mittee of the International Congresses of Zoology. He was also an honorary member and a long-time Vice-President of the Polish Entomological Society as well as an honorary member of the Soviet Entomological Society of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. Professor Jaczewski published over 100 scientific papers on the systematics of Heteroptera as well as 300 other works on various subjects. As initiator and chief editor of the basic monographic series: “Catalogue of the Polish Fauna”, ‘Freshwater Fauna of Poland’, “Keys for the Identifi- cation of Polish Insects”, Professor Jaczewski performed an immense and unforgettable work for which he certainly earned a well-deserved place in the chronicles of Polish zoology. Above all, he will certainly be remembered as an excellent master and mentor to several generations of scientists—now widely recognised as world specialists—and taxonomists, and as one who contributed a wide range of ideas and concepts to many general biological subjects. From 1939 on Professor Jaczewski served as a member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature; and from 1954 as Chairman of the “Polish Group for Questions of Zoological Nomenclature at the Institute of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences’’ (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 291- 292). As a member of the Commission, Dr. Jaczewski was always punctual and exact in his work and his comments were always constructive and helpful to a correct decision. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5 PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED COMMENTS ON THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO STABILISE THE NAMES OF THE NORTH EUROPEAN SPECIES BELONGING TO THE TIPULA OLERACEA GROUP WITHIN THE GENUS TIPULA LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 896 (See vol. 17 : 209-213; vol. 18 : 129-135, 145; vol. 20 : 304) C. P. Alexander (20.ix.1960): “‘Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche have proposed, among other matters, to place the name Tipula subcunctans Alexander on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology in favour of the name Tighe azn de Jong. I wish to object to this arbitrary proposal on the following grounds. The name Tipula subcunctans Alexander was proposed in 1921, Tipula czizeki de Jong in 1925. From present knowledge the two names pertain to a single Palaearctic species having a vast range in Eurasia, with czizeki occurring in Europe, subcunctans in the eastern part of the range, being known from Sakhalin and the northern Japanese islands. It should be emphasized that the name subcunctans has priority and that this has been recognized by Japanese workers on the family, as by Ishida, in his Catalogue of the Japanese Tipulidae, 1955. It may be noted further that if the name subcunctans were to be suppressed, as suggested, that a new name would have to be proposed in order to validate the Asiatic subspecies or cline, creating a farcical situation in view of the admitted validity and priority of the name subcunctans. It is assumed that the reason the authors wish to preserve the name czizeki for the species is that it is of some economic importance in Europe and that a number of papers have discussed it under this name. The retention of a name on such a basis, as opposed to strict priority, seems unjustified. In the United States there is a comparable case in an allied species, the so called Smoky Crane-fly, discussed in the economic literature as Tipula infuscata Loew, 1863. This name later was found to be a synonym of the earlier Tipula cunctans Say, 1823, which is the presently accepted name for the species. It is my belief that there are two distinct subspecies involved in this consideration and that the eastern one should be called Tipula (Tipula) subcunctans subcunctans Alexander, 1921, the western one, 7.(7.)s. czizeki de Jong. Any other action would appear to me to be illogical and unfair. A. M. Hemmingsen & H. Lemche (in reply to C. P. Alexander’s comment, 15.x.1960): “‘The arguments of Dr. Alexander in his letter of September 20th do not appear to us to contain the whole matter concerning the species C of the ‘‘Tipula oleracea-group”’. In our application (paragraph 8 d), it was explained that Tipula fusca Staeger, 1840 has priority over 7. subcunctans Alexander for the species C. From Dr. Tjeder who (1953 : 115) cited the name fusca as preoccupied, we have now got the reference in question, namely to Carolo de Geer, 1773, Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Upsaliensis, 1 : 66. The title of that paper runs as follows: “‘Tipula, fusca, antennis simplicibus, alis longitudinaliter plicatis.” On the last page of his paper (: 77), only the name is cited again, and in full. As there seems to be no place in the text where a binominal is used, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the name has no status in nomenclature. By priority, therefore, Staeger’s name is the valid one, and subcunctans Alexander can at most be claimed for a possible Siberian subspecies. Our concern, however, is to obtain continuity in the use of the name czizeki as of importance in applied entomology, but it is not in our interest to set aside priority for changing the name to subcunctans rather than to fusca. Dr. Alexander has not yet published anything to allow a distinction between the Siberian and the European subspecies, but in litt. he has indicated to one of us that such differences exist. But even then we do not feel that the presence of one little used name besides another one (fusca) should prevent a reasonable solution of our problem, which is to obtain continuity in the usage of the name for the species C. Bull. zool, Nomencl., Vol, 31, Part 1. July 1974. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Dr. Alexander, in his letter, cites an example of an American species (the Smoky Cranefly) which is also of economic importance but which nevertheless got its name changed for purely nomenclatural reasons. Dr. Alexander, however, does not tell about the importance of this pest, neither of the feeling of those applied entomologists who, probably, have regarded the change as inevitable, without knowing what to do to prevent the change. In our case, we know that the change is sure to cause very strong inconveniences, and probably also some confusion. It is exactly this type of case which has caused the appearance of the statement in the Preamble of the International Code of Nomencla- ture about continuity of names. Therefore we maintain our proposals as the best ones. The only alternative possible appears to us to be to accept fusca Staeger for the species C as based on strict priority. But we prefer the adoption of our original proposals. P. Brinck (16.i.1961): “In my letter on the names of the species of the Tipula oleracea-group, dated January 9th 1961 [published vol. 18 : 134-135] I say (paragraph 7) that: ‘The larvae cannot be identified... .. ; they have to be reared’.”’ I have just received a publication by Mr. Allan Brindle (The larvae and pupae of the British Tipulinae, 1960. Trans Soc. Br. Ent., 14 : 63-114) and I see that he gives keys presenting us with characters which can be used for separating the larvae of the species of the Tipula oleracea-group. Although this fact does not in any way affect the discussion contained in my letter, I feel that I should inform you.” H. Lemche (18.i.1961): “May I comment briefly on some of the points made by Commissioner Per Brinck in his letter of 9th January 1961, viz. (para. 9.) The designation of a neotype as proposed by Dr. Hemmingsen and me is not intended to be effective until and if, our proposals are accepted. (paras. 6 & 10.) The whole problem is presented most lucidly, and I agree that the whole case turns on the relative value of stabilising the use of the name oleracea: (a) To the benefit of stability in all Europe except Sweden, but setting aside formal claims. No confusion will occur, but there will be slight inconvenience of a name change in Sweden (not serious because scientists in this country have always had to accept the fact that o/eracea outside their own country meant species A, and that their oleracea was known abroad as paludosa). (b) According to priority, and to benefit of scientists in Sweden. This action will overthrow immediately all usage of the names involved, in by far the greater part of the area where these pests occur, thus creating extensive and almost endless confusion in applied entomology in most parts of Europe. The claim to the opposite presented by Dr. Borg does not consider at all the situation outside Sweden. (c) The proposal of throwing away totally the name oleracea is an acceptable solution, in general being the one favoured by me in cases where two groups of scien- tists use one and the same name in two different ways. In the present case, however, the inconvenience to be carried by the one group (solution a) is so small that it is much less than that arising out of the name-change in all the rest of Europe where the name submendosa is completely unknown. Hence, on balance, I find it much better to accept the name oleracea as defined by us. As Dr. Hemmingsen is abroad for several months, I have answered on behalf of us both. P. Brinck (reply to Lemche’s letter, above, 29.i1.1961): ‘‘I should like to emphasize once more that we should know if the three species are all pests in Central Europe. We know that in Northern Europe only one of them is a real pest, as said already by Linnaeus, viz. T. oleracea Linnaeus (verus). As far as I have been informed there is substantial evidence for the latter species (B) only, also in other parts of Europe where a specialist has dealt with the problem. I would not say that 7. submendosa is ‘completely unknown”’. I am no specialist of the group, but I have met with the name several times in the literature when dealing with the case. Specialists should be consulted if necessary.” Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 B. Tjeder (7.ii.1961): “Dr. Hemmingsen and Dr. Lemche have in their letter of 13th December 1960 [published vol. 18 : 133-134] apparently admitted that I am right in considering their species ‘‘B’’ to be the true Tipula oleracea of Linnaeus. They advocate, however, that a strict priority should not be applied since it would mean confusion in economic entomology, and propose that their species “‘A” should be dealt with as oleracea. It seems thus evident that they consider the species “‘A” as a pest, but they have not brought forward any evidence that it is so. Personally I am not convinced that the species ‘“‘A”’ is a real pest. This species was, by the leading German specialist in Tipulidae, Dr. B. Mannheims, Bonn, repeat- edly stated to occur on the banks of rivers, etc. (Sy/leg. Biol., Festschr. Kleinschmidt, p. 237, 1950, and Die Fliegen der Palaearkt. Region, Lief. 170, p. 76, 1952). It would be very unfortunate if the name oleracea should be accepted for a species (A) which perhaps will prove not to be areal pest. Such a result of the matter would be contrary to that which was intended by Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche. The confusion of names in this group of species is not of so great a proportion as emphasised by Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche. It is of relatively young date, arisen after 1925, when de Jong observed that three species were confused under one name, oleracea. It is thus of relatively little importance and by no means so serious as to necessitate a decision contrary to the Law of Priority.” B. Tjeder (7.viii.1963): ‘Reference is made to a paper by Dr. W. E. China in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 304, containing: (i) Information about the discovery that Tipula paludosa Meigen, 1830, is a primary homonym of Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1794. (ii) Proposal by Dr. Lemche in a letter to the office of the Commission: (a) to suppress the name Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1794 (as a nomen dubium) and; (b) to place Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1794, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. I take the liberty of protesting formally against the statement that Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1794 (Ent. Syst. 4, p. 239) should be a nomen dubium. The type has certainly gone but the very good description allows an identifying of the species as being the same as Tipula bimaculata of Linnaeus (Syst. Nat. X, 2, p. 586, 1758) now known as Dictenidia bimaculata (L.). A translation into German of Fabricius’s des- cription was published in 1818 by Meigen (Syst. Beschr. europ. zweifl. Ins., Teil 1, p. 157-158) and in 1830 the same author published a still more exhaustive description, based on the type-specimens (of both sexes), examined by Meigen in Fabricius’s collection. Dr. B. Mannheims, Bonn a/Rh., leading specialist of the Tipulinae in Europe has in 1951 (Die Fliegen der Palaearkt. Reg., Lief. 167, p. 25) listed the species as a synonym of Dictenidia bimaculata (L.), basing his opinion on Meigen’s above-mentioned trans- lation of Fabricius’s description and redescription of the species. The identity of Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1794, is thus solved, and consequently Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1794, cannot be considered as a nomen dubium. The name Tipula paludosa Meigen, 1830, a primary homonym of Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1794, may therefore not be used for the species in the o/eracea-group, indicated as species ‘“B” by Hemmingsen and Lemche in their proposal of 1960 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 209 sqq). The correct name of the species ‘‘B” is, however, Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, as I have pointed out in my earlier comments (vol. 18 : 131 sqq.). As Tipula paludosa Meigen, 1830, is itself a synonym of Tipula oleracea L., 1758, it seems of less taxonomic importance that it also is a primary homonym of Tipula paludosa Fabr., 1794. It is therefore proposed to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- cot to set aside the proposal by Dr. Lemche, given in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : A, M. Hutson and R. I. Vane-Wright (i.v.1970): “We wish to comment on the proposals of Hemmingsen and Lemche (1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 209-213) concerning the Tipula oleracea-group. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Linnaean collection is temporarily housed in the British Museum (Natural History). The specimen in this collection labelled ‘4. oleracea” is unquestionably conspecific with the “‘species C’’ of Hemmingsen and Lemche. This is confirmed by the dissection of the genitalia of this specimen, which is a male. However, contrary to the reports of Hemmingsen and Lemche, quoting Mannheims (1952, Tipulidae, in Lindner; Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. (15) : 76) this specimen does bear the reference number (4) to this species in the Syst. Nat. and there is nothing to suggest that this specimen is not the type specimen of Linnaeus. In paragraph 8(d) Hemmingsen and Lemche refer to the possible homonymy of Tipula fusca Staeger, 1840, but could find no reference to this. As reported by Hutson and Vane-Wright (1969, Entomologist’s Gaz. 20 : 237) Tipula fusca Staeger, 1840, is preoccupied by Tipula fusca Bloch, 1776 (Beschaft. berlin. Ges. naturf. Fr., 2 : 175), erected for a specimen described from amber. Mannheims (1966, Bonn. zool. Beitr., 15 : 266) notes that Tipula paludosa Meigen, 1830 is preoccupied by Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1794 (Ent. Syst., 4 : 239). Fabri- cius’ specimen(s) is lost (teste Zimsen, 1964, The Type Material of I.C. Fabricius. Copenhagen. p. 449) and the name must therefore be regarded as a nomen dubium. With regard to these points added to those of Hemmingsen and Lemche to conform with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature the names that would have to be employed for the species of this group are as follows:— sp.A (“oleracea Linnaeus, 1758’) =submendosa Tjeder, 1941 sp.B. (“‘paludosa Meigen, 1830’) =fimbriata Meigen, 1818 sp.C (“‘czizeki de Jong, 1925”) =oleracea Linnaeus, 1758 This would be a most unfortunate decision resulting in considerable confusion both for taxonomists and non-taxonomists involved in the study of this much quoted species. We therefore feel that the Code, produced as a guide toward a stable nomen- clature, should not be used to add further confusion to an already confusing situation, and that the proposals of Hemmingsen and Lemche (viz. to retain the names oleracea, paludosa and czizeki in the combination listed above) should be accepted. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME GALAXIAS DELFINI PHILIPPI, 1895 (PISCES, GALAXIIDAE). ZN(S.) 1877 By Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The case of Galaxias delfini does not have any formal proposals, i.e. it is not crystal clear what are the actions to be taken by the Commission. May [I translate the informal suggestions given by the author, and present the following proposals: 1. Under the plenary powers to suppress the specific name de/fini Philippi, 1895, as cited in the combination Galaxias delfini. 2. To place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the was name delfini Philippi, 1895 as cited in the combination Galaxias eljini. ADDITION TO THE APPLICATION CONCERNING THE SUPPRESSION OF DIOMEDEA LEPTORHYNCHA COUES, 1866. Z.N.(S.) 1947 (See volume 28 : 106) By George E. Watson (Curator, Division of Birds, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.) The name Diomedea leptorhyncha Coues, 1866, has never been used as a senior synonym in the primary literature. On the other hand, Diomedea irrorata Salvin, 1883, has been used repeatedly in biological and conservation literature dealing with Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 the Galapagos Albatross during the past 50 years. The following is a list of references which satisfies the requirements of Article 79(b): Brosset, A. 1963. Alauda 31 : 83 Fisher, A. K. and Wetmore, A. 1931. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 79 (10) : 26 Fleming, C. A. 1950 Emu 49 : 176 Harris, M. P. 1969. J. Zool., Lond. 159 : 151 1969. Ibis 111 : 97 1973. Ibis 115 : 483 Helmayr, C. E. and Conover, B. 1948. Catalogue of birds of the Americas, Part 1, No. 2 : 43 Koepke, M. 1964. Las aves del departamento de Lima, Peru : 12 1970. The birds of the department of Lima, Peru : 18 Lévéque, R. 1963. Terre Vie 110 : 408 Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1966. The species of birds of South America : 12 1970. A guide to the birds of South America Livingston Publishing Company, for Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Wynnewood : 12 Murphy, R. C. 1925. Bird islands of Peru. New York & London : 273 1936. Oceanic birds of South America. New York : 530 Nelson, B. 1968. Galapagos. Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd., London : 321 Olrog, C. C. 1968. Las aves sudamericanas vol. 1, Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Tucuman : 52 Peters, J. L. 1931. Checklist of birds of the world, vol. 1 : 43 Stresemann, E. and Stresemann, V. 1966. J. Orn. Lpz. 107 (Sonderheft) : 299 Swarth, H.S. 1931. Occ. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci. 18 : 33 Thomson, A. L. 1964. A new dictionary of birds : 44 Vincent, J. 1966. Int. Un. Protect. Nature Red data book vol. 2: Aves : 2/31 Watson, G. E. and Divoky, G. J. 1971. Condor 73 : 487 Wetmore, A. 1965. The birds of the Republic of Panama, vol. 1. Smithson. misc. Collns 150 : 34 Thus a prima facie case can be made under Article 79(b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature for the suppression of Diomedea leptorhyncha Coues, 1866, in favour of Diomedea irrorata Salvin, 1883, which is the name exclusively used for the Galapagos Albatross. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PARAONIS GRUBE, 1872 IN FAVOUR OF PARAONIS CERRUTI, 1909 UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1993 (See volume 29 : 209-211) By P. Uschakov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR) and VY. Strelzov (Murmansk Marine Biological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Dalnie Zelentsy, Murmansk, USSR) It has been suggested to us that the name Paraonis might be retained with its original author and date by the designation of a neotype for Paraonis tenera Grube, 1872. This is, from the nominal point of view rather interesting, for by choosing Aonides fulgens as neotype the same result would be achieved in nomenclature as that suggested by us. However, as far as taxonomy is concerned, a solution of this kind imposes certain difficulties. In describing Paraonis tenera certain features (a caruncle=a dorsal antenna on the prostomium, special neuropodial setae) are mentioned. These make us suppose that Paraonis tenera is one of the species belonging to the genus Aricidea. Besides, Aonides fulgens is not to be met with in the parts where Paraonis tenera has been found and described. It is the latter circumstance that makes us hold that the suggestion that we sent to the Commission would be more to the point. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature As for the type-species of Levinsenia (a specimen of which if selected neotype of Paraonis tenera would make Levinsenia a junior objective synonym), it has not been designated yet. The genus was originally established with two species—Aonides fulgens and A. gracilis, both being referred to in the same paper and the former given full details. At the present time we take these species as belonging to two different genera, i.e. A. fulgens is considered as the type-species of Paraonis, while A. gracilis is the type-species of Tauberia. Thus, the designation of A. gracilis as the typeé-species of Levinsenia would bring about an alteration in the names given to the genera. COMMENT AND REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION ON PROPOSAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 33a OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE. Z.N(S.) 1966 By Eugene Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) Fawcett and Smith (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 50-52, 1971) request exercise of the plenary powers to emend Liopelmatina to Leiopelmatidae (Amphibia). Sabrosky (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 156-157, 1972) questions the need for exercise of the plenary powers and proposes an amendment to the Code by adding a subsection (iii) to Article 33a, providing that a family group name based on an “‘unjustified emendation” of a genus-group name is to be corrected to the original spelling of the name emended, unless the emendation has become the valid name of the genus. I favour the proposed amendment of the Code. To Sabrosky’s reason for the “unless” clause I would add that there are a number of situations where usage has made an “unjustified emendation” the valid name, not only under Article 23(b) but under the Monaco amendments, especially when the Commission has adopted the emendation. As the proposed amendment is merely clarifying and formal amendment may be long delayed, I propose that in the interim it be adopted as a Declaration. Admittedly there is some uncertainty as to the power to validate Leiopelmatidae under the present Code provisions without recourse to the plenary powers and much delay. In fairness to the original applicants I suggest that the plenary powers be exercised. COMMENT ON THE PROBLEM OF THE TYPE-SPECIES OF THE GENUS LUCINA (MOLLUSCA : PELECYPODA). Z.N.(S.) 2001 (See volume 29 : 158-161) By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The proposals in the Lucina case are much in need of clarification. First, the appeal to the Commission to clarify the issue on the contents of genera published originally without included species, is unsuited for direct voting. I move that it be taken out of the present case and treated separately. Further, paragraph 2 of the Keen/Abbott proposals is not formally correct, and as there are counter proposals, I have tried to put it all together in a suitable form, without taking any view on the matter at present. I propose to let the Commission vote on two alternatives: A. (The Keen/Abbott proposals) (1) Under the plenary powers to set aside all type selections for Lucina Bruguiére, 1797 prior to the present one and, having done so, to (2) designate the nominal species Tellina pectinata Gmelin, 1791 as the type of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lucina Bruguiére, 1797 (gender : feminine), type-species as designated under (2) above: Tellina pectinata Gmelin, 1791; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1] (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name pectinata Gmelin, 1791, type-species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797, as designated under (2) above. B. (The Rehder and Bretsky/Britton proposals) (1) Under the plenary powers to set aside all type selection for Lucina Bruguiére, 1797 prior to this present one, and having done so, to (2) designate the nominal species Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758 as the type- species of Lucina Bruguiére, 1797; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lucina Bruguiére, 1797 (gender : feminine), type-species as designated under (2) above Venus pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names (a) pensylvanica Linnaeus, 1758, as cited in the binomen Venus pensylvanica, type of the genus Lucina Bruguiére, 1797 as designated under (2) above; (b) pectinata Gmelin, 1791, as cited in the combination Tellina pectinata. COMMENT ON THE REQUEST FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES OF TUTUFA JOUSSEAUME, 1881. Z.N.(S.) 2021 By H. A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I am in basic agreement with Dr. A. G. Beu on the desirability of conserving the superspecific name Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 by designating a type-species for it under the plenary powers (Beu, 1973). I have had some correspondence on this problem with Dr. Beu who now feels that some minor changes in his original request are desirable. He has suggested that I incorporate these changes in my comments, a procedure I am happy to carry out, as follows: 2. The species that Jousseaume originally designated as the type of his genus Tutufa is Murex lampas Linnaeus, 1758. This species, however, is a composite one, as Beu has pointed out in his application and in an earlier paper (Beu, 1970, p. 210), and should be restricted to the species of the genus Charonia (Cymatiidae) from the Mediterranean previously known as C. nodiferum (Lamarck, 1822). The other reference that Linnaeus cited under Murex lampas (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 748) consists of two figures in Gualtieri that represent a species of Tutufa. The first revision of Murex lampas was done by Gmelin in the 13th edition of the Systema Naturae (Gmelin, 1791, p. 3532). Here he transfers the Gualtieri reference from Murex lampas to the subspecies bubo, leaving only Rondelet’s figure of a Charonia under lampas. However, his references under bubo and rubeta are still a mixture of several species. In the 12th edition of the Systema Naturae (Linnaeus, 1767, p. 1216), the subspecies bubo and rubeta that Linnaeus had placed under Murex rana were transferred to /ampas as subspecies. 3. Under each of his varieties bubo and rubeta of Murex rana Linnaeus, 1758, cites one figure in Rumphius. For bubo the reference is Rumphius, p. 28, figure C, which the author describes as possessing a white, porcellanous aperture. This, as Hedley (1916, p. 41) and before him Vanatta (1914, p. 80) pointed out, is the same as Bursa (Tutufa) rubeta var. gigantea E. A. Smith (1914, p. 230). Judging from the collections in the National Museum of Natural History, this is the most common species, found through the Indo-Pacific region, and is, as Beu states in his request, “probably the form Jousseaume thought of as typical of the broad species he meant by the name Murex lampas.” 4. Although, as Beu states (op. cit., p. 55), Bursa (or Tutufa) rubeta may have been more commonly used in place of Murex lampas in the years since Smith’s paper, some of the most recent references have used bubo Linnaeus to replace the Murex aoe es ae (Kuroda, Habe, and Oyama, 1971, p. 134; Wilson and Gillett, » Pp. 80). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. I, therefore, believe that stability would be best served by choosing Murex rana var. bubo Linnaeus, 1758 (Murex lampas var. bubo Linnaeus, 1767), as the type-species of Tutufa. To consolidate this designation it would be advisable when the genus is monographically treated to designate as neotype of Tutufa bubo (Linnaeus) the type specimen of Bursa (Tutufa) rubeta gigantea E. A. Smith, 1914, which is considered, as pointed out above, to be a synonym of bubo Linnaeus. It may be mentioned that Linnaeus did not possess in his collection a specimen of this species, and the specimen labelled as Murex lampas in the Museum Ulricae, now at the University of Uppsala, is Murex lotorium (=Cymatium (Ranularia) lotorium (Linnaeus, 1758)). 1, ea request that the Commission amend Dr. Beu’s original application as ollows: (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. bubo Linnaeus, 1758 as type-species of Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881; (2) to place the generic name Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (gender : feminine), type-species (by designation under (1) above) Murex rana var. bubo Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name bubo Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination Murex rana var. bubo) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Beu, A. G. 1970. The Mollusca of the genus Charonia (Family Cymatiidae). Trans. R. Soc. N.Z. Biol. Sci. 11(16) : 205-223. —— 1973. Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda): Request for designation of type-species under the plenary powers Z.N.(S) 2021. Bull. zool. Nomencl., 30(1) : 54-56. GMELIN, J. F. 1791. Systema Naturae, ed. 13, 1(6). Leipzig. Hepxey, C. 1916. Further notes on Bursa rubeta. Jour. Conch. 15(2) : 41-42. KurRopA, es Hase, T., and OyAmA, K. 1971. The Sea Shells of Sagami Bay. Tokyo. LinNAEus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, 1 Regnum Animale. Stockholm. —— 1767. Systema Naturae, ed. 12 ref. 1 (2). Stockholm. SmirH, E. A. 1914. Note on Bursa (Tutufa) rubeta (Bolten)=Triton lampas (Lamarck) et auct.). Jour. Conch., 14(8) : 225 - 231. VanatTTA, E. G. 1914. Notes on Ranella lampas of authors. Nautilus, 28(7) : 80. Witson, B. R., and GiLLetTr, K. 1972. Australian Shells. Rutland, Vermont, and Tokyo. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 OPINION 1014 OKENIA MENKE, 1830 (MOLLUSCA, OPISTHOBRANCHIA): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are sup- pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) the generic name Jdalla Orsted, 1844, type-species Jdalla caudata Orsted, 1844; (b) (i) the specific name quadricornis Montagu, 1815, as published in the binomen Doris quadricornis; (ii) the specific name caudata @rsted, 1844, as published in the binomen Idalla caudata. (2) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the generic name Cargoa Vogel & Schultz, 1970, type-species by original designation, Cargoa cupella Vogel & Schultz, 1970 is an available name. (3) Under the plenary powers the name Okenia Menke, 1830 is declared available from that date and Okenia Menke, 1830 (gender: feminine) (in synonymy of Jdalia preoccupied), type-species by monotypy, /dalia elegans Leuckart, 1828, is hereby placed on the Official list of Generic Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 1995. (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) elegans Leuckart, 1828, as published in the binomen /dalia elegans (type-species of Okenia Menke, 1830) (Name No. 2520); (b) aspersa Alder & Hancock, 1845, as published in the binomen Jdalia aspersa (Name No. 2521). (5) The generic name Jdalla Orsted, 1844 as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 2045. (6) 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) quadricornis Montagu, 1815, as published in the binomen Doris quadri- cornis (Name No. 992); (b) caudata Orsted, 1844, as published in the binomen Jdalla caudata (Name No. 993), both as suppressed in (1)(b) above. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1931) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Henning Lemche in June 1970. The application was sent to the printer in July 1970 and was published on 29 March 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 265-266. 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 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1, July 1974. 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to three specialist serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. Malcolm Edmunds, Dr. Harald Rehder, Prof. Myra Keen and Dr. Robert Burn. Following a comment by Dr. C. J. Risso-Dominguez, Dr. Lemche added proposal 6. A further addition was necessary and all the proposals were brought together and published on 29 December 1972 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 196. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28th February 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)7 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 196. At the close of the pre- scribed voting period on 28th May 1973, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: Holthuis, Eisenmann, Lemche, Mayr, Simpson, Corliss, Vokes, Habe, Alvarado, Rohdendorf, Willink, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Binder, Brinck, Bernardi, Bayer, Heppell (except proposals 1(b) (i) and (6)(a)), Ride. Negative votes—none (0). Mr. Melville withdrew, M. Dupuis abstained and Dr. Kraus returned a late affirmative vote. Mr. Melville drew attention to the fact that Voting Paper (73)7 was issued before the close of the six-month period after the publication of the final proposals on 29th December 1972. However since there were no negative votes and no comments were received from any zoologist between 29 December 1972 and 29 June 1973, the voting paper was not re-issued. The wording of the Opinion reflects the comments made by Commissioners on that Voting Paper. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. W. D. L. Ride (22.v.1973): “The material in the application, and the comments, do not completely clarify the situation for me, which may be different from that concluded by the applicant. If the publication by Menke (1830) of Okenia is as stated in paragraph 3 of Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 265, and is not accompanied by a description or definition, it is not available from that work despite its treatment as an available name prior to 1961 (Art.11(d)). It would still need to satisfy the provisions of Art.12, and citation in synonymy, in itself, is not an indication (Art.16(b)(ii)). “Unless there is another, as yet unrevealed usage before 1838, Okenia becomes (according to Vogel & Schultz, 1970, p. 388) preoccupied in homonymy in 1838 through its use, by Zetterstedt in Diptera (the reference to Thiele 1831, is a proof-reading error for 1931). If this is the case Cargoa Vogel & Schultz is an available name (which the authors specifically state is not a replacement name for Okenia—whatever that may mean—since they ‘believe’ that the type of Okenia should be ‘assigned’ to it). “Tt is clear that Okenia is a name in general use and that it should be ren- dered available. Further, the comments by Burn and of Risso-Dominguez reveal an unresolved taxonomic situation which may require the retention of both Okenia and Cargoa. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 “T am of the opinion that the use of the plenary powers is required, and justified, to place the availability of both names beyond doubt and not merely to suppress Jdalla, quadricornis and caudata. Accordingly, I request that, providing proposals (2) and (3) of the application are accepted by a sufficient number of Commissioners, the Opinion should be worded appropriately. The purpose stated in the latter part of proposal (2) (i.e. ‘for those not consider- ing...’) is unnecessary because the case of Cargoa (as an available generic name with its own type-species and date) would not differ from that of any other subjective synonymy.” Dr. D. Heppell (24.v.1973): “I vote against proposals (1)(b)(i) and (6)(a) as I am not satisfied that Doris quadricornis Montagu should be rejected. Once Jdalia elegans and I. aspersa have been placed on the Official List of Specific Names, as proposed in Section (4) the threat to their stability arising from possible synonymy with a senior name is surely removed if the Official Lists have any significance at all. The identification of Doris quadricornis with Idalia elegans in the Plymouth Marine Fauna derives from Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923. List of British nudibranchiate Mollusca. Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 15 : 195-233. (see p. 218.)” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in this Opinion: aspersa, Idalia, Alder & Hancock, 1845, Mon. Brit. nudibr. Mollusca Fam. 1, pl. 26 caudata, Idalla, Orsted, 1844, De regionis marinis : 73 elegans, Idalia, Leuckart, 1828, Brev. Anim. : 15 Idalla Orsted, 1844, De regionis marinis : 73 Okenia Menke, 1830, Synopsis methodica molluscorum generum omnium : 10 quadricornis, Doris, Montagu, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. 11 : 17 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)7 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in the Voting Paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1014. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 November 1973 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1015 SOLENIUS LEPELETIER & BRULLE, 1834 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species made prior to this Ruling for the genus Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834 are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Solenius interruptus Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834 is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834 (gender : mascu- line), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Solenius interruptus Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1996. (3) The specific name interruptus Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834, as published in the binomen Solenius interruptus (type-species of Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2522. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1827) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. H. K. Court and Dr. A. S. Menke in September 1967. The application was sent to the printer on 4 October 1967 and was published on 18 January 1968 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 356-358. 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 13 November 1969 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (69)51 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 357. At the close of the voting period on 13 February 1970 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, Vokes, Obruchev, Eisenmann, Mayr, Alvarado, Simpson, Holthuis, do Amaral, Lemche, Tortonese, Starobogatov, Jaczewski, Melville, Binder, Evans, Bonnet, Ride, Kraus, Forest, Mertens, Brinck. Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. In returning his negative vote, Dr. Sabrosky made the following comment (7.11970): “I vote against the proposals, albeit somewhat reluctantly, because I disagree with several stages in the history of the case, while agreeing with the desire to retain Solenius in its accustomed meaning for a group of crabronid wasps. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 “This is clearly a case of misidentified type-species and therefore properly should have been decided under Article 70. The misidentification was clearly recognized by Richards (1935) and the proposal by Benson et al. (1947) was based upon that fact. It is unfortunate that this case was not settled long ago upon that basis. “The present applicants note Pate’s rejection of Westwood (1839) as type designation, and they cite Direction 32 (1956) of the International Commission, published almost 20 years after Pate’s catalogue. However, it is of more significance and relevance to note the Commission’s Opinion 71, published in 1922 (15 years prior to Pate’s catalogue), which stated that Westwood’s ‘typical species’ ‘are to be accepted as definite designations of genotypes.’ Pate’s action was in defiance of a duly rendered Opinion of the Commission, and moreover was contrary to the then long-held views ‘by workers of the 1800’s and early 1900’s’. Hence the action was unjustified on both legalistic grounds and on usage. I do not favour the acquiescence to this defiance that would be implied by approval of the present application. I would much prefer to see Crabro continuus Fabricius designated as type of Solenius.” The Secretary communicated this information to Dr. Court on 8th June 1970, but received no reply. When Dr. Menke reopened the question (13.x.1971) he was sent a copy of the Secretary’s letter to Dr. Court, and replied as follows to Dr. Sabrosky’s comment: Dr. Menke (19.i.1972): “It is true, as Dr. Sabrosky points out, that Pate defied the rules of the ICZN in determining the type-species of Solenius, but I would hate to see a ruling in which continuus was made the type of the taxon. To do so would mean that the large crabronine genus Ectemnius would become a junior synonym of Solenius, and that the subgenus of Lestica currently known as Solenius would be without a name. This change would upset usage that has been common in the most significant crabronid literature for some 30 years. I think in this instance that stability is more desirable than a furtherance of the seesaw interpretation of the name So/enius which Dr. Sabrosky seems to feel is warranted because of Pate’s illegal practice. I don’t condone Pate’s action, but it is after all more in the realm of unfortunate history now.” The outcome of the case is as though it had been dealt with under Article 70, since the designation of the type-species so made appears to be the one that best serves stability of nomenclature. The Opinion is therefore being published. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: interruptus, Solenius, Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834, Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. 3 : 683-810 Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834, Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. 3 : 683-810 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (69)51 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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. 1015. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 January 1974 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 OPINION 1016 CRIBRILINA PUNCTATA (HASSALL, 1841): DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the designation by Lagaaij, 1952, of a lectotype for Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841, is hereby set aside and the specimen described by Ryland & Stebbing 1971, Jrish Naturalists’ Journal, 17(3) : 66 and figure 2b.; now in the collection of the British Museum (Natural History) with the Registration Number “1973.4.6.1.” is hereby accepted as neotype of Cribrilina punctata (Hassall, 1841). (2) The species Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841, is hereby confirmed as type-species of Cribrilina Gray, 1848. (3) The generic name Cribrilina Gray, 1848 (gender: feminine), type-species by monotypy, Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1997. (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) punctata Hassall, 1841, as published in the binomen Lepralia punctata, as defined by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) above (type-species of Cribrilina Gray, 1848) (Name Number 2523); (b) cryptooecium Norman, 1903, as published in the binomen Cribrilina cryptooecium, as defined by the lectotype designated by Ryland & Stebbing, 1968 (Name Number 2524). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1837) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. J. S. Ryland and Mr. A. R. D. Stebbing in February 1968. The application was sent to the printer on 15 February 1968 and was published on 24 May 1968 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 62-64. 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). No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 January 1970 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (70)5 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 63. At the close of the prescribed Voting period on 28 April 1970 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Holthuis, Bonnet, Vokes, Evans, Jaczewski, Munroe, Tortonese, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Obruchev, do Amaral, Melville, Sabrosky, Mayr, Binder, Ride, Brinck, Staro- bogatov, Forest, Kraus, Alvarado, Mertens. Negative votes—two (2): Eisenmann, Simpson. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. E. Eisemann (9.ii.70): ““On the data provided in the application it seems to me that Lagaaij’s (1952) designation as lectotype of specimen 1847.9.16.118 was correct, and agreed with Hassall’s (1841) description of punctata. It was Norman (1903) who erred in calling true punctata ‘cryp- tooecium’ and assigning the name punctata to a different species. No evidence is provided of overwhelming usage to justify transfer of the name punctata. What is needed is a new name (if none exists in the literature) for Norman’s ‘punctata’.” Prof. G. G. Simpson (30.iii.70): “The aim of the application is evidently laudable, but the device of designating a neotype is not, none of the conditions for proposal of a neotype evidently being met.” Dr. W. D. L. Ride (13.iv.70): “I request the Secretary to include locality and other data of collection (so far as it is known) in the designation of the neotype of Lepralia punctata when he drafts the Opinion for publication.” On enquiry it was found that the type locality of the specimen described by Ryland & Stebbing, 1968, proposed to be the neotype of Cribrilina punctata (Hassall, 1841) was unknown. Therefore this specimen was not suitable for designation as a neotype under the plenary powers, and the authors were asked to propose another. Therefore the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the One-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)4, issued on 22 November 1973 either for or against the specimen described by Ryland & Stebbing in Jrish Naturalist’s Journal 17(3) 1971 : 66, fig. 2b, as acceptable as neotype of Cribrilina punctata (Hassall, 1841). This specimen comes from Raasay Sound, Inner Hebrides, where it was dredged on 14 October 1958 (Station 5, Ryland (1963) “A collection of Polyzoa from the west of Scotland” Scottish Naturalist 71 : 13-22) and is now in the collection of the British Museum (Natural History) with the regis- tration Number 1973.4.6.1. At the close of the voting period on 22 December 1973 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: Erben, Vokes, Melville, Mayr, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Lemche, Heppell, Binder, Sabrosky, Habe, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Bernardi, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Willink, Nye. Negative votes—one (1): Dupuis. Voting papers not returned—six (6): Brinck, Corliss, Munroe, Ride, Simpson, Starobogatov. Dr. Kraus returned a late affirmative vote. In returning his vote M. Dupuis made the following comment (26.xi.1973): “Cette affaire montre bien 4 quel point certaines propositions sont hatives. Elle permettrait a elle seule d’instruire tout le procés des Néotypes.” Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 ORIGINAL REFERENCES Cribrilina J. E. Gray, 1848, List. Brit. Anim. (1) : 117, 147 cryptooecium, Cribrilina, Norman, 1903, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 12 : 102 punctata, Lepralia, Hassall, 1841, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 7 : 368, pl. IX, fig. 7 The following are the original references for the designation of type- specimens for two species concerned in the present Ruling: Lectotype for Cribrilina cryptooecium Norman, 1903: Ryland & Stebbing, 1968, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 63 Neotype for Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841: Ryland & Stebbing, 1971, Jr. Nat. J.17 : 66 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (70)5 and on Voting Paper (OM)(73)4 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in those Voting Papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1016. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 9 January 1974 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1017 TR YCHOSIS FOERSTER, 1868 (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 Trychosis Foerster, 1868, made prior to this Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Cryptus ambiguus Tschek, 1870 is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Trychosis Foerster, 1868 (gender: feminine) type- species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cryptus ambiguus Tschek, 1870, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 1998. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) ambiguus Tschek, 1870 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 20 : 145) as published in the binomen Cryptus ambiguus (type-species of Trychosis Foerster, 1868) (Name No. 2525). (b) titillator Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10 : 565) as published in the binomen Jchneumon titillator (Name No. 2526) and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by van Rossem (1965). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1712) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. G van Rossem in July 1965. Dr. van Rossem’s application was sent to the printer on 12 August 1965 and was published on 2 November 1965 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 259-260. 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. Comments were received from Mr. J. F. Perkins (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 8) to which Dr. van Rossem replied (Bull. 23 : 8) and from Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (Bull. 24 : 73). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 September 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)42 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 260. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nine (9) received in the following order: Holthuis, Vokes, Obruchev, Mayr, Brinck, Bonnet, Boschma, Binder, Ride*. Negative votes—eleven (11): China, Munroe, Simpson, Sabrosky, do Amaral, Jaczewski, Alvarado, Uchida, Mertens, Forest, Kraus. *Dr. Ride asked that ambiguus Tschek should be designated as the name of the type-species. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 Dr. Lemche abstained from voting, Dr. Evans was on leave of absence and Professor Tortonese returned a late affirmative vote. Several of the Commissioners stated that the alternative proposals suggested by Dr. Sabrosky (Bull. 24 : 73-74) should have been voted on, and no provision had been made for this on Voting Paper (67)42. Therefore, Voting Paper (69)38 was issued on 16 June 1969 on which Commissioners were invited to vote, under the Three-Month Rule, in part | either for or against the use of the plenary powers in this case, and in part 2 for either van Rossem’s or Sabrosky’s proposals, the latter being in two parts. At the close of the voting period on 16 September 1969 the state of the voting was as follows: Part I Affirmative votes—sixteen (16), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Lemche, Jaczewski, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Obruchev, Melville, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, Sabrosky, Kraus, Forest, Ride. Negative votes—one (1): do Amaral. Part 2 Alternative A, (that mesocastanus be designated the valid name of the type-species of Trychosis). Affirmative votes—one (1): Holthuis. Negative votes—fifteen (15): China, Lemche, Jaczewski, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Obruchev, Melville, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, Sabrosky, Kraus, Forest, Ride. Alternative B, section (i) (that ambiguus be designated as the valid name of the type-species of Trychosis). Affirmative votes—sixteen (16): China, Lemche, Jaczewski, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Obruchev, Melville, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, Sabrosky, do Amaral, Kraus, Forest, Ride. Negative votes—one (1): Holthuis. Alternative B, section (ii) (for or against the setting aside of van Rossem’s first reviser, 1966, action). Affirmative votes—thirteen (13): China, Lemche, Jaczewski, Eisenmann, Mayr, Obruchev, Melville, Starobogatov, Binder, Sabrosky, Kraus, Forest, Ride. Negative votes—one (1): Holthuis. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: ambiguus, Cryptus, Tschek, 1870, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 20 : 145 titillator, Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 565 Trychosis Foerster, 1868, Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. 25 : 187. The reference for the lectotype designation of Ichneumon titillator Linnaeus, 1758 is: van Rossem, G., 1965, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 259. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (69)38 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. 1017. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London, 24 January 1974 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1018 POLANISA WALKER, 1875 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Polanisa Walker, 1875, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Polanisa Walker, 1875 (as suppressed in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2046. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1829) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. J. T. Wiebes in October 1967. Dr. Wiebes’ application was sent to the printer on 4 October 1967 and was published on 7 December 1967 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 319-320. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to other pre- scribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 August 1969 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (69)46 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24:320. At the close of the pre- scribed voting period on 28 November 1969 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—seventeen (17): China, Holthuis, Melville, Mayr, Vokes, do Amaral, Starobogatov, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Brinck, Evans, Ride, Forest, Alvarado. Negative votes—four (4): Simpson, Binder, Sabrosky, Kraus. Voting papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. Doctors Eisenmann and Lemche abstained from voting. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning votes: Prof. E. Mayr (9.ix.69): “Tt would seem unwise to change the name of an economically important insect (even though the application says deplorably little about the availability of Polanisa). Nor would it make sense to place a generic name on the Official List, only to abandon it when an unused senior synonym is found’’. Prof. G. G. Simpson (16.ix.19): “The vote “against” follows my opinion that action should not be taken on the proposal as presented. It is partly erroneous, if other parts are taken at face value and hence in any case contradictory, and it is partly inadequate”’. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 Dr. H. Lemche (4.x.69): “This case cannot be voted on in this manner. I have NOT opposed the application, but the circumstances that have led to them”’. Dr. Lemche had previously written a protest on the procedure introduced by the applicant (10.ii.68), but the objection was not published. Dr. E. Eisenmann (17.x.69): “Before I vote on this I should like to see Dr. Lemche’s comment in opposition (apparently not published) or at least have a summary of his reason for opposing”’. Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (23.xi.69): ‘“‘Wiebes’ lectotype designation creates a problem that did not previously exist. Modern authors in general seemed con- tent to leave Polanisa a nomen dubium. Incidentally, in paragraph 6, is the “BM81-107” (lectotype label) correct? If so, it means an 1881 accession. Would this material have been before Walker in 1871 and 1875?” Dr. O. Kraus (24.xi.69): “In my opinion the Commission cannot act on the basis of the present application, which deals with a case of subjective synonymy. The correct proposal should have been that preference should be given to the name Philotrypesis by those authors, who regard it a synonym of Polanisa’’. As there were several adverse comments on the case the publication of the Opinion was delayed in order to answer the points raised in these comments. A summary of the correspondence appears below: Some Commissioners felt that the applicant deliberately created a problem for the Commission by designating a lectotype for Polanisa lutea; if that action had not been taken then Polanisa would have remained a nomen dubium. In fact a lectotype was designated because Walker’s type material was found. Therefore, the identity of Polanisa Walker, 1875, type-species by monotypy, P. lutea is quite clear and no longer in obscurity. The two courses of action that were open were either to accept Polanisa Walker, 1875 as a senior synonym of Philotrypesis Forster, 1878, or to have Polanisa suppressed. Those previous authors who were acquainted with, or guessed at the identity of Polanisa preferred to ignore the case rather than have the name removed. The Register at the British Museum (Natural History) has a note to say that although the Elliott Collection was registered in 1881, the collection includes the types of the species described by Walker in 1871. Dr. Wiebes’ lectotype designation is given in Tijdschr. Ent. 110, 1967. The name Polanisa was validly published by Walker, 1875 (Entomologist 8 : 17) with Polanisa lutea the only species. A description was provided so that it is a perfectly available name as was already recognized by Patton, 1884. Idarnes was established by Walker, 1843 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 12 : 47) with Idarnes carme the only species. Due to an oversight, it was not clear in the application that Jdarnes was prior to Walker, 1871 and that transiens Walker, 1871 was not the type-species of Jdarnes. Idarnes belongs to a different tribe from Polanisa, and cannot be the oldest available name for Philotrypesis. ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Polanisa Walker, 1875, Entomologist 8 : 17. 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (69)46 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been truly 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. 1018. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 6 February 1974 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 HYPACANTUS RAFINESQUE, 1810 (PISCES, CARANGIDAE): REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N(S.) 2058 By Enrico Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Via Brigata Liguria 9, 16121 Genova, Italy) 1. C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz (1810 : 43) created the name Hypacantus for a genus of fishes so defined: “Corpo compresso, un ala dorsale opposta all’ala anale, e dei raggi sciolti situati anteriormente ad ambidue”’. He added the following remarks: “Questo genere differisce dal Centronotus nell’avere dei raggi sciolti avanti all’ala anale fra l’ano ed essa; viene formata dal Scomber aculeatus di Linneus, ossia il Centronotus vadigo di Lacepede’”’. Rafinesque then corrected the name to Hypacantha (Analyse de la Nature, 1815 : 84). 2. Rafinesque’s definition is very rough, as many others of his. However, he quotes Centronotus vadigo Lacépéde, that corresponds to Scomber amia Linnaeus. The latter can therefore be accepted as type of Hypacanthus, as correctly stated by Smith-Vaniz (1973 : 228). So, Hypacantus is a senior synonym of Lichia Cuvier, 1817 (type: Scomber amia L.). 3. D.S. Jordan (Genera of Fishes, 1917 : 80) quoted the genus Hypacanthus (emended spelling) with Scomber aculeatus L. as type (Incidentally, such species does not occur in Linnaeus’ writings). Only in 1936—after a very long oblivion —the name Hypacanthus reappeared, as H. W. Fowler (Mar. Fishes W. Africa, 2: 717) used the binomen Hypacanthus amia (L.). 4. A. Wheeler was interested in the problem Lichia-Hypacanthus and published (1962 : 535) a detailed history of the case, which I have just sum- marized above. He preferred to keep the name Lichia, stating that “. . . to preserve the well known name Lichia special action will be required to suppress Hypacanthus”. The latter, therefore, would be a “nomen oblitum”’. 5. Lichia amia is a name almost universally employed. It is found in all the classical books on the European fishes. It would be easy to assemble more than 50 references, starting from old authors as Bonaparte, Moreau, Stein- dachner, etc. and ending with the recent volume of CLOFNAM (Hureau and Monod, 1, 1973 : 377). 6. I don’t know of more than ten Hypacanthus appearances in the litera- ture. Furthermore, only Smith-Vaniz and Staiger (1973 : 228) used this name after a critical discussion of the nomenclatorial problem. All the other authors (H. W. Fowler, J. L. B. Smith, G. Maul, R. Dollfus, F. La Monte, J. R. Norman), simply put H. amia in their lists or gave short descriptions without comments on the proper name of the fish. I regret to say that Hypa- canthus amia occurs on a single paper dealing with the Mediterranean fishes, and that is mine (Fishes of Rhodes, 1947: 171). But here again the name was just mentioned in a faunistic list, prepared with the aid of Fowler’s book, then supposed to be a safe guide. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7. The name Lichia is to be preserved if stability in nomenclature is desired. Hypacanthus can be considered as a “nomen oblitum”, in agreement with Wheeler’s opinion. Lichia amia is a binomen currently used for about 150 years, being applied to a common Carangid in the whole literature concerning the Mediterranean fishes. We must consider how annoying is the revival of old and long forgotten names. Such changes which are not imposed by serious classificatory reasons are too often regretted, not only by specialists but also, and even more, by general zoologists and people interested in fish and fisheries. The former use of Lichia for fishes now placed in different genera is not an obstacle to its preservation, because Clupea, Gadus, Gobius, etc. are in the same situation. Wheeler proposed the validation of Lichia. Let us go a further step and have Hypacanthus suppressed, as it is necessary for the said validation. 8. It is therefore requested that the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Hypacantus (Hypa- cantha, Hypacanthus) Rafinesque, 1810, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the generic name so suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the generic name Lichia Cuvier, 1817 (type species by subsequent designation by Regan, 1903: Scomber amia L.) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ALBUQUERQUE, R. M. 1954-1956. Port. Acta biol. (ser. B) 5 : 663 (L. amia) Bini, G. 1968. Atlante dei Pesci delle Coste italiane. Mondo Sommerso, Milano. vol. 5 : Perciformi : 71 (L. amia) Cuvier, G. L.C. F.D. 1817. Le Régne Animal, Paris. Tom. 2 : 321 De BuEN, F. 1935. Notas Resum. Inst. esp. Oceanogr. (2) 89 : 104 (L. amia) Dreuzeiwe, R. ee AL. 1954. Bull. Sta. Aquicult. Péche Castiglione (n.s.) 5 : 230 (L. amia Hureau, J.C. and Tortonese, E. 1973. Carangidae : 373-384. Jn; HuREAU, J. C. and Monon, Th. (Eds.) Check list of the fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and of the Mediterranean CLOFNAM vol. 1, Paris, UNESCO Nosre, A. 1935. Fauna Marinha de Portugal 1 : Vertebrados Porto : 277 (L. amia) Pott,M. 1954. Rés. Sci. Expéd. océanogr. belg. Eaux cét. afr. Atlant. Sud. (1948-49) 4 (3A) : 158 (L. amia) RAFINESQUE-SCHMALTZ, C.S. 1810. Caratteri etc. Palermo REGAN, C. T. 1903. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (7) 12 : 348-350 SMmITH-VANIZ, W. F. and Sraicer, J.C. 1973. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 39 No. 13 : 185-256 SoLsAN, T. 1948. Fauna et Flora Adriatica 1 Pisces, Zagreb : 152 (L. amia) Svetovipov, A. N. 1964. [The fishes of the Black Sea] Opred. Fauna SSSR 86 : 264 (L. amia) [In Russian] TorTONESE, E. 1955. Arch. Oceanogr. Limnol. 10 (3) : 191 (L. amia) — 1961. foe P.-v. Réun. Commn int. Explor. scient. Mer Méditerr. 16 (2) : 355 (L. amia WHEELER, A. 1963. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 5 (1962) : 529-540 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 RE-SUBMISSION OF PAN OKEN, 1816 AND PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (MAMMALIA), PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 482 By G. B. Corbet, J. E. Hill, J. M. Ingles and P. H. Napier (British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London S.W.7) The proposal to validate the generic names Pan Oken, 1816 and Panthera Oken, 1816 was first submitted to the Commission in 1950 by T. C. S. Morrison- Scott of the British Museum (Natural History), London, and re-submitted in 1965 ({Z.N.(S.) 482] Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 230-232) in accordance with the request of the Commission published in 1963 concerning cases sent in before 1959. Later the re-submission was overlooked and because of the lapse of time it is now reprinted as an appendix together with subsequent comments. The present applicants have not emended the material which is reproduced in the Appendix. Since the last submission of this proposal in 1965, the names Pan and Panthera have continued to be used as the dominant names for these genera, both by specialists in these groups, eg. Napier & Napier (1967), Hemmer (1966) and by compilers, eg. Walker (1968). Likewise in entomology Pantherodes Guenée, 1857 continues to be used, on the assumption that Panthera Hibner, 1823 is preoccupied by Panthera Oken, 1816. The proposal is therefore as relevant now as in 1965. However, two small alterations need to be made to the proposal. The late Dr. J. C. Trevor of Cambridge pointed out a use of the specific name troglodytes for the chimpanzee earlier than that cited in the application of 1965 (para. 8: (1)a, (2)a and (4)a), and argued that it should be cited from Blumenbach, 1775 (De generis humani varietate nativa : 37) rather than from his Handbuch der Naturgeschichte of 1779. In view of comments by Hershkovitz (1966) the relevant page references in volume 3, part 2 of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Natur- geschichte, 1816 can be given as p. 1230 for Pan and p. 1052 for Panthera. The case is now re-submitted for any further comment and final decision. APPENDIX PAN OKEN, 1816, AND PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (MAMMALIA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N(S.) 482 By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (British Museum (Natural History), London) The present case is a revision of one submitted to the Commission in 1950 in accordance with the note published by the Assistant Secretary of the Commis- sion in 1963 at the beginning of Volume 20, Part 2, of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This note, which requested authors of cases submitted before 1959 to revise and resubmit them, has only just come to my attention. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2. The two names in question were first published by Lorenz Oken in Volume 3 of his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte 1816, a work rejected by the Commission for nomenclatorial purposes, in Opinion 417, published in 1956. At the same time, the International Commission invited zoologists to submit applications for validation under the plenary powers of any name published in the Lehrbuch the rejection of which would, in their opinion, lead to instability or confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned. In my 1950 application I requested that 7 genera with their type-species should be placed on the Official Lists. Only Pan and Panthera are now required to be dealt with in this way, and for the following reasons. 3. Pan. After earlier usages of Simia, and Anthropopithecus which still appears from time to time, zoologists generally have now settled down with Pan for chimpanzees. To introduce yet one more change, to Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, when the Commission invites us to stabilise with Pan would hardly con- tribute to stability. There would be yet one more name in medical, and anthro- pological, etc. works and it would have to be explained by future authors that when they refer to Chimpansee they are really also referring to the animal called Pan in previous works. And if it be thought that Chimpansee is an attractive proposition as being self-explanatory it should be remembered that there are published grounds for holding that gorillas and chimpanzees should be placed in the same genus. If gorillas came to be called Chimpansee there could be some confusion in zoology, let alone amongst practical users of zoology for whom straightforward stability has greater appeal than the finer and more esoteric points of pure priority. 4. Panthera. The usage of this name for the great cats is now well established and universally understood. If we do not accept the Commission’s invitation to stabilise it the next available name seems to be Leo Brehm, 1829. To begin, now, to refer to tigers as Leo tigris, and leopards as Leo pardus etc. would seem unhelpfully to confuse matters. 5. Prior to the publication of Opinion 417 the Oken names had been rejected by Cabrera, 1932, and by Hershkovitz, 1949, but G. Gaylord Simpson had supported the validation of Pan and Panthera in a letter to the International Commission dated 19 October, 1950. 6. Pan Oken Stiles and Orleman, 1927, studied the problem of the nomenclature of the Chimpanzee in considerable detail and came to the conclusion (p. 59) that the correct name for the Chimpanzee was Simia satyrus L. 1758. But in 1929 this name was suppressed by the Commission in Opinion 114. Consequently, the valid name under the Rules is Chimpansee troglodytes (Blumenbach), 1779. Although Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, is the generic name accepted by Hershkovitz, 1949 (J. Mammal. 30 : 296) as the valid pertinent name, he points out that the name Pan can be attributed to Palmer, 1904 (Index Gen. Mamm. : 508, 902) who cited it from Oken. Following the publication of Opinion 417 in 1956 it is now possible to conserve the name Pan as dating from Oken, 1816. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 7. Panthera Oken. According to J. A. Allen, 1902 (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 16 : 378) the type of Oken’s genus Panthera is P. vulgaris Oken which he stated was practically identical with Leopardus Gray, 1867. Hershkovitz, 1949, dates Panthera from Palmer, 1904 (Index Gen. Mamm. : 509) who cited it from Oken pp. 1052-1066, and accepts Allen’s 1902 type-selection as Panthera vulgaris (Sp. 7 in Oken). He points out that Panthera Severtzow, 1858, is preoccupied by Panthera Hubner, 1823, in Insecta, Lepidoptera. This name is not now in use in Lepi- doptera having been regarded as a homonym of Panthera Oken and given the replacement name Pantherodes by Guenée in 1857. By Opinion 417, however, Panthera Hiibner, 1823 again becomes available. Therefore, in order to conserve the names Panthera in Mammalia and Pantherodes in Lepidoptera, it is necessary to validate Panthera Oken, 1816, under the plenary powers. As shown by Hershkovitz (/oc. cit. p. 298) there is difficulty in identifying P. vulgaris Oken which Allen selected as type-species of Panthera Oken. Hershkovitz concludes that this type-species must be the S. American Felis colocolo (Oken p. 1052). It is, therefore, necessary when conserving Panthera Oken, to designate a type-species under the plenary powers (for example Felis pardus L. 1758). 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to take the following action: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to validate the generic name Pan Oken, 1816, as allowed by Opinion 417, and to designate Simia troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779, as the type-species; (b) to validate the genericname Panthera Oken, 1816, as allowed by Op- inion417, and to designate Felis pardus L. 1758, asthe type-species ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Pan Oken, 1816 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Simia troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779 (The Chimpanzee); (b) Panthera Oken, 1816 (gender : feminine), type-species by designa- tion under the plenary powers (1) (b) above, Felis pardus Linnaeus, 1758 (The Leopard); (3) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Theranthropus Brookes, 1828, Cat. Anat. Zool. Mus. : 28. (b) Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, Cuvier’s Das Thierreich 1 : 76. (c) Anthropopithecus Blainville, 1838, Ann. Franc. et Etr. Anat. Phys IT : 360, as junior objective synonyms of Pan Oken, 1816; (d) Panthera Hiibner, 1823, Zutr. Exot. Schmett. If : 25, (a junior homonym of Panthera Oken, 1816). 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) troglodytes Blumenbach, 1779, as published in the binomen Simia troglodytes (type-species of Pan Oken, 1816); (b) pardus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Felis pardus (type-species of Panthera Oken, 1816). REFERENCES ALLEN, J A. 1902. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 16 : 378 BLAINVILLE, H. D. de. 1838. Ann. Frang. et Etr. Anat. Phys. 11 : 360 BLUMENBACH, J. F. 1779. Handb. Naturgesch : 65 Brookes, J. 1828. Cat. Anat. Zool. Mus. : 28 CasrerRA, A. 1932. Trab. Mus. Cienc. Nat. Madrid, zool. ser. No. 17 : 106 HersHKovitz, P. 1949. J. Mammal. 30, No. 3 : 289-307 HUpner. 1823. Zutr Sammi. exot. Schmett. Il : 25 Linneaus, C. 1758. Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 41 Patmer, J.S. 1904. Index Gen. Mamm. : 509 SEVERTZOW, N. 1853. Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 10 : 385 Stites, C. W., & ORLEMAN, M. B. 1927. Hyg. Lab. Bull., U.S. Public Health Service, No. 145 : 1-66 Voict, F.S. 1831. Cuvier’s Das Thierreich 1 : 76 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965 : 230-232 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION OF PAN OKEN, 1816, AND PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (see volume 22, pages 230-232) By Philip Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois) Morrison-Scott (B.Z.N. 22 : 230, 1965) requests conservation of the “‘generic”’ names Panthera and Pan from Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, published 1816. In 1956, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature rejected, in Opinion 417, the Lehrbuch for purposes of zoological nomenclature. I have shown elsewhere (1949, Journ. Mammal., 30 : 289-301) that there is no need to revert to this non-binomial work for any zoological name. Nearly all generic names for mammals ostensibly cited from Oken’s Lehrbuch are available in well known and nomenclaturally valid publications. Two or three “Oken” names still current but with availability from binomial works clouded by questions of homonymy or priority may give concern to some zoologists. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature can, by use of its plenary powers, validate such names from any nomenclaturally recognized source. Nevertheless, action should not be taken in cases where non-Oken names are available under the Code and in use without entailing confusion in concepts or up- heavals in nomenclature. Zoologists who publish taxonomic revisions, check lists, or catalogs of animals, assume full responsibility for each bibliographic reference they cite and for the taxo- nomic status and availability of each name they recognize. Authors such as G. M. Allen (1939, A check list of African mammals), G. G. Simpson (1945, The principles of classification and a classification of mammals), and J. R. Ellerman and T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (1951, Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals, 1758 to 1946) who gleaned names from Palmer (1904, Index generum mammalium) but cited them as if copied directly from Oken, 1816, are representing bad names for good and imprecise or non-existent bibliographic references for original and valid sources. It is ironical that Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 zoologists who scorned the rules of nomenclature now apply to the International Commission on Nomenclature for conservation of counterfeit names they favored and rejection of the appropriate and currently used bonafide names they disfavor. “Panthera Oken, 1816” In his proposal, Morrison-Scott states that conservation of Panthera for great cats requires validation of the name from Oken, 1816. He adds that inasmuch as Felis colocolo, the ascribed type of ‘‘Panthera Oken”’ is not a great cat, it is necessary to designate another type, namely Felis pardus Linnaeus. Oken’s Lehrbuch contains no generic name Panthera as used and understood by modern authors. Felis pardus, as employed by Oken, has nothing to do with his “Panthera” and is not unequivocably the Linnaean Felis pardus. Morrison-Scott gives no bibliographic reference to his fancied ““Panthera Oken, 1816’’, and he cannot because there is none. In short, Morrison-Scott requests validation of a name from a work rejected for purposes of zoological nomenclature, cited from an author who never proposed the name in the form or sense currently used or recognized by Morrison- Scott, and with the type species pulled out of a hat. Procedure, technicalities, legalities and proprieties to one side, the claim that there is need for conserving Panthera as of Oken, Morrison-Scott, or anyone else, does not bear scrutiny. The most widely used name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus. This is the generic name applied to all North American cats, except lynxes, by Hall and Kelson (1959) in “The mammals of North America.”’ These authors treat “‘Panthera’’ of Frisch and Oken as “unavailable”. Cabrera (1958 : 298) in his authoritative ‘‘Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur’, employes Leo Brehm 1829 (Oken’s Isis, p. 637) as the generic name for great cats. In his posthumous monograph of Argentine cats, Cabrera (1962 : 162) categorically denies recognition to names proposed in works officially rejected for purposes of zoological nomenclature irrespective of the facade of legality they may subsequently receive. In my manuscript catalog of South American mammals, Felis is the generic name used for most species of cats including the jaguar. There is no intention or thought of recognizing ‘‘Panthera”’ under any guise. Wide usage of Panthera for great cats stems from Pocock (1916, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (8), 18 : 314). This authority believed that ‘“‘since the tendency of modern systematic mammalogy has found in the present instance expression in the admission of many [!] species of leopard, lion, jaguar and tiger, it is possible, perhaps probable, that the logical outcome of that process—namely, the ascription of generic rank to each of these animals—will be followed in the future. If that be so, nominal symbols are available for them.’’ With these remarks, Pocock (/oc. cit.) listed the following generic names for great cats. Panthera Oken, ex Allen, 1902 (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 16 : 377), for the leopard. Tigris Oken, ex Palmer, 1904 (Index generum mammalium, N.A.F., 23 : 509), for the tiger. Leo Oken, ex Palmer, 1904 (op. cit., p. 368), for the lion. Uncia Gray, 1854 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2), 14 : 394), for the ounce. Jaguarius Severtzow, 1858 (Rev. Mag. Zool. (2), 10 : 386), for the jaguar. Recognition of five genera of great cats persuaded Pocock to raise the group to subfamily rank, the Pantherinae, primarily on the basis of a character of the hyoid apparatus which now proves to be even more tenuous than has been generally supposed. Other characters adduced for generic separation of great cats from small as typified by Felis catus Linnaeus, have not withstood critical review. Validation of Pantheraas the obligate generic name for great cats is neither indicated nor in the best interest of tax- onomy or nomenclature. It is urged that Morrison-Scott’s application for conservation of ‘“‘Panthera Oken, 1816”, be rejected. The reasons are summarized as follows. 1. ‘“Panthera Oken, 1816” is an undigestible artifice. Current usage of the name stems from Allen, 1902 (supra cit.) and Palmer, 1904 (supra cit.). 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2. The most commonly used generic name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus. 3. There is no strong evidence that great cats typified by the leopard, Felis pardus Linnaeus, are generically distinct from small cats typified by Felis catus Linnaeus. Generic or subgeneric distinction between the two groups is, however, recognized by some authorities (not merely authors or compilers). Generic names, other than “‘Panthera’’, for separating them are available and in use. 4. The earliest available generic (or subgeneric) name for great cats is Leo Brehm, 1829 (supra cit.), type Felis leo Linnaeus. Current and spreading usage of this valid and uncontroversial name promotes stability, meets with no serious objections and results in no confusion. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should not validate a rejected name for which there is no need from a non-binomial work which most zoologists cannot or will not in clear conscience accept on zoological or nomenclatural grounds. In conclusion, it is requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1) place the name ‘‘Panthera Oken’’, cited by authors, on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (2) place the generic name Leo Brehm, 1829 (Oken’s Isis, p. 637), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. “Pan Oken, 1816” Scientific names of primates are used by a very small number of zoologists. Few anthropologists, primatologists, zookeepers, behaviorists, biomedical and biochemical investigators and others using non-human primates in research or for display, are zoologists. Hardly any of them are taxonomists. Scientific names of animals mean little to them. The rules of nomenclature mean even less. There is an urgent need to convince non-zoologists and non-taxonomists of the importance of taxonomic dis- criminations and the use of correct scientific names for experimental and display animals. This task becomes particularly difficult and complicated if workers are asked to use technical names which are not valid according to our Code and which have been declared unavailable by special ruling of our Commission. The name “Pan Oken, 1816”, for the chimpanzee, has not been universally adopted. It is or would be rejected by the vast majority of zoologists familiar with the rules of nomenclature and the history of Oken’s Lehrbuch. As noted, most of those who work with chimpanzees are not accustomed to use scientific names for animals. They may be more familiar with the pipes of Pan than with the Pan of Oken. This makes it all the more urgent to arouse the nomenclatural consciousness of those who use chimpanzees in research with the valid and convincing generic name, Chimpansee Voigt. Morrison-Scott’s belief that the change from Pan to Chimpansee after earlier usage of Pan, Simia and Anthropopithecus “hardly contributes to stability”, is not supported by history. Nomenclatural changes have consistently moved toward stability by rejection of the invalid for the valid. The history of such names as Callithrix Erxleben, 1777, versus Hapale Mliger, 1811, and Saguinus Hoffmannsegg, 1807, versus Leontocebus Wagner, 1840, Marikina Lesson, 1840, Tamarin Gray, 1870 and others, prove the point. The many ‘‘Oken names” widely used during a 20-30 year span have all but disappeared from recent literature. The attempt to salvage Pan (and Panthera) seems to be a belated and gratuitous rearguard action. The contention that confusion would ensue should gorillas and chimpanzees be combined generically is baseless. I doubt the premise but here are the alternatives. Pan gorilla Pan troglodytes versus Chimpansee gorilla Chimpansee troglodytes Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 1 submit that the true identity of either chimpanzee or gorilla is less likely to be confused under the generic name Chimpansee than under that of Pan. “Pan” gained currency through Elliott’s despairingly erratic, ‘““A review of the Primates (1913, p. 227). Elliott’s source for the name was, of course, Palmer (1904, Index generum mammalium, p. 508). Very little survives of Elliott’s contributions to primatology and there is no good reason for clinging to his usage of ‘“‘Pan Oken”’. In conclusion, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to (1) reject Morrison-Scott’s application for conservation of ‘‘Pan Oken”’. (2) place the name “‘Pan Oken”’, cited by authors, and the sales catlog name Theranthropus Brookes, 1828 (A catalogue of the anatomical and zoological museum of Joshua Brookes, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S., etc., p. 48), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (3) place the generic name Chimpansee Voigt, 1831 (Cuvier’s Das Thierreich, 1 : 76) type, Simia troglodytes Blumenbach, by monotypy, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. By Fernando Dias de Avila-Pires (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) I would like to comment on the proposed validation of the generic names Pan Oken, 1816, and Panthera Oken, 1816. I do not think that considering one work non-nomenclatorial but validating a number of names published in it would contribute at all to make nomenclature stable. Theoretically we could have one book in the “index”? as non-valid, but with the majority or the totality of its names validated. In the present case I very much regret to disagree with T. C. Morrisson-Scott, on the following grounds. 1. Pan undoubtedly is a ‘‘well stabilized’’ name for the chimpanzees. In case we accept the correct generic name Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, it certainly will be confusing for non-taxonomists to call a gorilla, Chimpansee, once they are accepted as co-generic. But it would also be confusing to call scientifically a gorilla, Pan, once it is a “well stabilized” name for the chimpanzees . . . In fact what is confusing and strange—to non-primatologists—is not the nomenclatorial problem, but the discovery that gorillas and chimpanzees are so closely related. Jf the name Gorilla was older than Pan or Chimpansee, it would also be confusing to call a chimpanzee, Gorilla. 2. With the names Panthera Oken, 1816, and Leo Brehm, 1829 the same problem arises. Lions, jaguars, tigers and leopards (or panthers), all belong to the same genus. But when you use a new combination for the first time, then you realize how closely related these animals are considered to be. To calla panther Leo is no more confusing than to call a lion, Panthera. Altogether, there is some argument about the type-species of Panthera Oken, which Hershkovitz holds to be the South American Felis colocolo, once Allen selected Panthera vulgaris Oken as the type-species. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966 : 67-70 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL FOR THE CONSERVATION OF PANTHERA AND PAN. Z.NAS.) 482 (see volume 22, pages 230-232) By E. Tortonese (Museum of Natural History, Genoa, Italy) When I read Morrison-Scott’s proposal for the conservation of the names Pan and Panthera, 1 sent a few words of support, as it seemed advisable to keep such names, now widely employed by both mammalogists and non-mammalogists. Now, I am rather impressed by comments sent by P. Hershkovitz and by F. Dias de Avila-Pires (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 (2/3) : 67-69). It appears that we must first 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature consider not a nomenclatorial problem, but a strictly taxonomic one: are large and small cats congeneric or not? are chimpanzee and gorilla congeneric or not? It is often said that the taxonomy of mammals is now well established and that only the smaller forms require further work. It is therefore surprising that we don’t know the proper scientific name of the lion, or the chimpanzee; as a matter of fact a museum curator or director is still uncertain (1966!) about the labelling of the speci- mens, and the present examples are not alone. Therefore, I consider the opportunity of discussing a nomenclatorial question a doubtful one when the corresponding taxonomic question has not been solved. May I add that, as far as large mammals are concerned, the solution of similar problems is particularly desirable. The present case involves such “well-known” animals that a final agreement on their taxonomy can reasonably be expected. Of course, this is a matter for the mammalogists and not for the Commission. The latter can consider later what generic names are to be used, if this remains uncertain. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 1. March 1967 : 3 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF PAN FROM OKEN, 1816. Z.N.(S.) 482 (see volume 22, pages 230-232, volume 23, pages 67-70) By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) I strongly support the application of Morrison-Scott to preserve the name Pan Oken, 1816. As early as 1914 this name has been called a ‘“Code name” in Opinions of the Commission. It is the name almost universally used since that time either for the champanzee or for the African apes. To say, as Hershkovitz does, that there is no need for stability of scientific names in this area because “few anthropologists, primatologists, zookeepers, behaviourists, biomedical and biochemical investigators and others using non-human primates in research . . ., are zoologists”’ is an argument the force of which I fail to comprehend. All these people have been using the name Pan for the last couple of generations and there is no conceivable advantage in changing it at this late date. Furthermore, as correctly pointed out by Morrison-Scott, there is a strong trend to place both chimpanzee and gorilla in the same genus and the neutral name Pan is certainly more suitable for this polytypic genus than the name Chimpanzee. Few scientific names have been as stable as has been the name Pan over the last 50 years and to change it would expose taxonomy to precisely the kind of reproaches of irresponsibility and failure to understand the information retrieval significance of nomenclature which the more responsible taxonomists have been trying to refute. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 2. April 1967 : 66 PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (MAMMALIA, CARNIVORA): FURTHER COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION AND RENEWED APPLICATION. Z.N.(S.) 482 (see vol. 22, pages 230-232, vol. 23, pages 67-70, vol. 24, page 3) By Helmut Hemmer (Jnstitut fiir physiologische Zoologie, University of Mainz, Germany) Concerning the Morrison-Scott’s (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 230-232, 1965) request to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature “‘to validate the generic name Panthera Oken, 1816, as allowed by Opinion 417, and to designate Felis pardus L. 1758, as the type-species”, there were published in this journal unfavourable Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 comments by Hershkovitz and Dias de Avila-Pires and a consent by Tortonese. In the interest of defending zoological nomenclature against confusion it seems highly necessary to discuss these comments. The first mention of the name Panthera without any following specific name and therefore not clearly marked as a generic name may be found in Oken’s “Lehrbuch der Naturegschichte. 3 Theil, Zoologie, 2. Abth., Fleischthiere, Leipzig 1816” on page 1052 for Felis colocolo. Abbreviated to P. one finds this name further on as P. paragayensis (p. 1052) and P. mexicana (p. 1054). Hence Hershkovitz is surely right concerning the first mention of Felis colocolo, the hitherto ascribed type of Panthera Oken, in saying this is “‘no generic name Panthera as used and understood by modern authors”. With regard to this the unabbreviated name Panthera with clear generic meaning followed by a specific name may be found in the “Lehrbuch” as Panthera americana (p. 1054) for the ocelot. Following this Oken used Panthera again in abbreviation among others for the leopard (p. 1057: ‘6. Art P. varia, F. Leopardus” for the Panthera pardus leopardus and Panthera pardus panthera (partim); p. 1058: “‘7. Art. P. vulgaris, Panthera, F. Pardus” for the african leopard, especially the Panthera pardus pardus from Egypt). Therefore Hershkovitz seems to be wrong in writing ‘‘Felis pardus, as employed by Oken, has nothing to do with his “‘Panthera”’ and is not unequivocably the Linnean Felis pardus”. According to Article 69 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature there is no reason why Felis pardus L. should not be designated as type-species of Panthera Oken as requested by Morrison- Scott, for Felis pardus L. obviously has been included by Oken as one species among others in his genus Panthera. Article 1 of Hershkovitz’s summary: ‘‘Panthera Oken, 1816 is an undigestible artifice” has to be rejected. Hershkovitz states that “‘the most widely used name for great cats is Felis Lin- naeus”. He cites as a proof for this view only three published faunal catalogues for North and South America and his own manuscript catalogue of South American mammals. Except in the monograph of Cabrera (Los Felidos vivientes de la Republica Argentina. Revista del Mus. Argent. de Cienc. Nat. “Bernardino Rivadavia” e Inst. Nac. de Invest. de la Cienc. Nat., 6 (5), Buenos Aires 1961) of Argentine cats using Leo instead of Felis (!) for the great cats, there is no special paper on the classification of the Felidae in his list. Out of the great number of papers on this matter written by Pocock and using the name Panthera Hershkovitz cites only one of the earliest from 1916 recognizing five different genera of great cats. It seems that he has over- looked all following papers of the same author summarizing lion, tiger, leopard and jaguar under the generic name Panthera. Since Pocock’s work on “The Classification of existing Felidae” (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 20 (119) : 329-350, 1917) giving subfamily rank to the Panthera-group there are exactly 50 years now in which the name Panthera Oken was widely used not only in special taxonomic papers as given by Haltenorth (Die verwandtschaftliche Stellung der Grosskatzen zueinander I and II (Z.f. Sduge- tierke. 11: 32-105 and 12 : 97-240, 1936 and 1937), Zarapkin (zur Frage der verwandtschaftlichen Stellung der Grosskatzen zueinander. Z.f. Sdugetierkde. 14 : 220-224, 1939), Leyhausen (Beobachtungen an L6owen-Tiger-Bastarden mit einigen Bermerkungen zur Systematik der Grosskatzen. Z.f. Tierpsych. 7 : 46-83, 1950), or Wiegel (Das Fellmuster de wildlebenden Katzenarten und der Hauskatze in vergleichender und stammesgeschichtlicher Hinsicht. Sdugetierkundl. Mitt. 9, Sonderheft, 1961), or in the fundamental Simpson’s classification of mammals (The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 83 : 1-350, 1945), but also in most of the general mammalogical and non- mammalogical literature and textbooks, as already stated by Tortonese (cited above). Therefore, article 2 of Hershkovitz’s summary: “‘The most commonly used generic name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus” for want of any good foundation has to be rejected too. Subfamily rank was given to the Panthera-group by Pocock primarily on the basis of a character of the hyoid apparatus as Hershkovitz correctly states. But Hersh- kovtiz quotes no published new investigation concerning this feature in assuming that this character ‘now proves to be even more tenuous than has been generally sup- 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature posed”. Further on he is simply wrong saying: “Other characters adduced for generic separation of great cats from small as typified by Felis catus Linnaeus, have not withstood critical review.” As I have shown elsewhere in detail (Hemmer, H.: Untersuchungen zur Stammes- geschichte der Pantherkatzen (Pantherinae). Part I. Véerdffentl. d. Zool. Staats- sammlung Miinchen 11 : 1-121, 1966) the four species lion, leopard, jaguar and tiger belonging to one another differ morphologically as well as behaviourally from all other genera or species groups of cats to a very much greater extent than do these groups between themselves, except the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). Beside thecharacter of the hyoidean apparatus Pocock (On the external characters of the Felidae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 19 : 109, 1917) has already described two more differences between Pantherinae and Felinae concerning the rhinarium and the claw-sheaths. Sonntag (The Comparative anatomy of the tongue of the Mammalia. VIII. Carnivora. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1923) showed a further characteristic feature in the mor- phology of the tongue. Leyhausen (Verhaltenstudien an Katzen, 1956, and: Uber die unterschiedliche Entwicklung einiger Verhaltensweisen bei den Feliden. Sdugetier kundl. Mitt., 4 : 123-125, 1956) has published some behavioural differences (voice, eating attitude, tearing action, care of the fur). The ounce (Uncia uncia) differs enough from the taxonomically clearly defined genus Panthera to be given its own generic rank but phylogenetically related to the base of it. Therefore the taxonomic connection of these two genera may only be expressed by a higher taxonomic category than the generic one. The subdivision of the Felidae into the three subfamilies Pantherinae, Felinae and Acinonychinae seems to be fully justified (see Hemmer, l.c., especially pages 17-18). For the Pantherinae there may be given the following diagnosis: Suspensorium of the hyoid imperfectly ossified, its interior portion consisting of a larger or shorter elastic tendon. Naked area of the rhinarium not, or at most with a very narrow area, reaching to the dorsal side of the nose; rhinarium itself tolerably flat, the median area narrow without definite lateral infranarial extension. Claw sheaths well developed, both upon the outer and the inner side of the claw. Spinous patch of the tongue begins close to apex of tongue, and is restricted to the anterior part of the dorsum. In the pattern of the head and neck nowhere continuous longi- tudinal stripes but spots only. Pupil of the eye at normal light round or nearly round. Use of “‘tearing action’ at eating. Care of the fur, especially concerning the face, not white thorough. Tail generally stretched out backwards in sitting or resting attitude. These explanations may show that article 3 of Hershkovitz’s summary: ‘“‘There is no strong evidence that great cats typified by the leopard, Felis pardus Linnaeus, are generically distinct from small cats typified by Felis catus Linnaeus” has also to be rejected. In his article 4, Hershkovitz speaks of a “‘current and spreading usage” of the name Leo Brehm for great cats which “promotes stability, meets with no serious objections and results in no confusion”. I can see no proof for this view of current and spreading usage of Leo. Placing the name Leo Brehm on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in place of Panthera Oken would contradict the stability of nomenclature and result in the greatest confusion. Such an unnecessary change in the name of one of the widely known genera of animals would be beyond every reasonable regulation of nomenclature. In requesting the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature to place the name Panthera Oken on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and asserting that there would be no need for this name, as he has done in his article 5, Hershkovitz himself calls for such confusion. Dias de Avila-Pires (cited above) also disagrees with Morrison-Scott. But his real problem in doing so is not a nomenclatorial one but a problem of language. His statement: “To call a panther Leo is no more confusing than to call a lion Panthera” seems to be a very unrealistic argument for rejecting a well established name in favour of another one which would be in no way better according to his own view. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 In connection with this proposed preservation of Panthera Oken there is another problem. I have shown (Hemmer, I.c.) that the genus Panthera has to be subdivided into the two subgenera Panthera for lion, leopard and jaguar and Tigris for the tiger. The first mention of Tigris with generic meaning likewise dates from Oken, 1816, the second from Gray, 1862. As I have no firm intention of applying for a third name of Oken’s to be validated, the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature may decide which of these two names should be valid. In conclusion, I support and renew Morrison-Scott’s application for conservation of ‘‘Panthera Oken, 1816” and request a decision on the author of the subgeneric name Jigris. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to take the following action: to use its plenary powers: (1) to validate the generic name Panthera Oken, 1816, as followed by Opinion 417, and to designate Felis pardus L., 1758, as the type-species; (2) to decide on the subgeneric name Tigris between the authors Oken, 1816, and Gray, 1862. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967 : 259-261 REPLY TO MAYR’S COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF PAN FROM OKEN, 1816. Z.N.(S.) 482 By Philip Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) In his comment on preservation of Pan Oken, 1816, Professor Mayr (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 (2) : 66) declares, “‘to say as Hershkovitz does, that there is no need for stability for scientific names in this area because,’—then he goes on with a direct quotation from Hershkovitz (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 (2/3) : 68), italics mine—‘ ‘few anthropologists, primatologists, zookeepers, behaviorists, biomedical investigators and others using non-human primates in research . . ., are zoologists’ is an argument the force of which I fail to understand.” In his statement, Mayr first attributes to me a conclusion of his own device and which is entirely alien to anything I said or implied. He then couples it with names of scientific professions I listed in a context diametrically opposed to his peculiar interpretation. My original remarks, which Mayr obviously failed to understand, are clear and unequivocal exhortations to all who work with animals to seek stability of scientific names in harmony with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and Opinions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Pan, cited from ‘“‘Oken, 1816” (Lehrbuch Naturgeschichte . . ., usually without definite page reference) is invalid because the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature rejected Oken’s Lehrbuch for nomenclatorial purposes (Opinion 417, 1956). It has been shown that Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, is the oldest available name for the chimpanzee. As explained in my comments, most users of Pan Oken, are not concerned or even aware of the status of the name. The vast majority tend to accept zoological names in good faith from secondary sources. To my knowledge, no author of any taxonomic list or classification which includes Pan, and no proponent of the preservation of Pan, credit this generic name to a proper source or propose that it be preserved from a binomial author, and thus placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Perhaps Mayr, Morrison-Scott, and others favouring preservation of Pan from Oken, 1816, are more concerned with the validation of Oken’s Lehrbuch than with a valid name for the chimpanzee. Surely, most opposition to the use of Pan would dissolve were this name cited from its first correct usuage for the chimpanzee, for 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature example Palmer, 1904 (Gen. Mamm. : 508) and not from a zoologically dubious base and a nomenclatorially unacceptable work. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967 : 261-262 A COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF THE GENERIC NAME PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (MAMMALIA, CARNIVORA). Z.N.(S.) 482 (see volume 22, pages 230-232; vol. 23, pages 67-70; vol. 24, pages 3, 259-261) By Vratislav Mazak (Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 91-Brunoy, France and Institute of Systematic Zoology, Charles University, Prague, Czechoslovakia) Since Morrison-Scott’s (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 230-232, 1965) request to validate the generic name Panthera Oken, 1816, several comments concerning this question have been published in this journal (vol. 23 : 67-70, vol. 24 : 3 and 259-261). Technical problems connected with the name Panthera Oken, 1816 were discussed in detail by Hemmer (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 259-260, 1967). I agree completely with Hemmer’s opinion and conclusions as far as the question of the name Panthera is concerned. I would only like to mention some additional facts and some more general aspects concerning the problem. There certainly is no doubt that Hershkovitz’s statement (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23, 1966) that ‘‘the most commonly used generic name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus” has to be rejected. In the course of the last decades the generic name Panthera has been undoubtedly applied to big cats much more frequently than the name Felis. The status of the name Panthera Oken, 1816, has already been discussed by Ognev (Zveri SSSR i prilezhashchikh stran, Moscow-Leningrad, vol. iii, pp. 237-238, 1935; see also Mammals of U.S.S.R. and Adjacent Countries, vol. 3, Jerusalem, 1962) who did not finally accept the name. The arguments of this Russian author are principally the same as those of Hershkovitz (I.c.), i.e. that the type-species of the genus in question is Felis colocolo. Hemmer (l.c.) mentions, however, all the reasons showing that the name Panthera may be, in fact, accepted without being at variance with the Inter- national Code of Zoological Nomenclature. It is interesting to mention that the generic name Panthera has later on been used by Ognev himself as well as by his disciples; e.g. Stroganov in his excellent monograph on the Siberian Carnivora (Zveri Sibiri. Khishchnye. [Mammals of Siberia. Carnivora.| Moscow, 1962). Generally a somewhat different concept of genus accepted by American authors on the one hand and by European authors on the other hand can explain another statement by Hershkovitz saying that ‘“‘there is no strong evidence that great cats .. . are generically distinct from small cats .. .”. As commonly known the American mammalogists incline to be more or less “lumpers’’, the European mammalogists “splitters”. This question, however important it is, has none the less absolutely nothing to do with the problems of nomenclature and its stability. Hemmer (/.c., p. 260) summarizes quite a gamut of different characteristics which separate the group of so-called big cats (Pantherinae) from all other cats. To the morphological characteristics of the subfamily Pantherinae given by Hemmer, I would like to add that Ognev (/.c., pp. 111-112) mentions a difference in the projection of the anterior processus of the jugal bone. As the characteristic given by Ogney was established on the basis of materials of those species of cats which inhabit the territory of the Soviet Union, I have tried to verify it in other forms of the Felidae and I can, in this place, state that the characteristic in question does not seem to be of general validity. Nevertheless, another characteristic, briefly recently described (V. Mazak, Note sur les caractéres craniens de la sous-famille des Pantherinae [Carnivora, Felidae]. Mammalia, 32 (in print) 1968), was found. In big cats the most anterior part of the zygomatic arch, laterally from the foramen infraorbitale, does not generally exceed the level of the foramen infraorbitale itself, whilst in small cats it generally reaches beyond the level of infraorbital foramen in the oral direction, It should be said, however, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 that in the Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) the shape of the anterior part of the zygomatic arch is more or less similar to that found in big cats. I think it is not necessary to mention that many other various features separate the Cheetah from big cats as well as from other cats. As to the different features of behaviour given by Hemmer (I.c.) I can emphasize that all of them are fully justified. Indubitably we must not over-estimate the taxo- nomic importance of behavioural characteristics and criteria as they are influenced by evolutionary phenomena to the same extent (though perhaps in somewhat different ways) as all other characteristics and criteria used by modern taxonomy and systematics. In the case of the family Felidae both behavioural and morphological characteristics, however more or less pronounced they are, fit none the less together. The Puma and the Leopard seem to be the best example as both of them are of about the same size. All the morphological characteristics listed by Hemmer as well as the cranial one mentioned above separate these two cats. In addition, all the basic behavioural features of the Puma are absolutely identical with those of small cats and all the principal features of behaviour in the Leopard are identical with those of all other big cats. The group of big cats cover five species: the Leopard, the Jaguar, the Tiger, the Lion, and the Snow Leopard or Ounce. All of these species show every single one of the common characteristics summarized by Hemmer (l.c.) as well as a common skull feature given above. The Ounce presents, nevertheless, additional differences (especially cranial: general shape of skull, broad and short nasals, different form of bullae, different shape of occiput etc.) which are so distinct that an independent generic rank has to be applied for this member of the group. I have repeated these known data in order to point out again the fact that all the species of recent Felidae can be divided into some groups on the basis of series of both morphological and behavioural differences, and to accent the other fact, viz. that within each of these groups we can find forms which are distinct enough to represent different genera in the framework of the respective group. Three or four subfamilies (Felinae Trouessart, 1885; Lyncinae Gray, 1867; Pantherinae Pocock, 1917 and Acinonychinae Pocock, 1917; Lyncinae being none the less generally included into Felinae) might thus indicate evolutionary lines and phyletic interrelations among living Felidae. Several forms of recent cats show of course, a problematic taxonomic status and a very misty phylogenetical position. From this point of view the position of the Clouded Leopard, Neofelis nebulosa, that in my opinion cannot certainly be held to be a member of Pantherinae, might turn out to be of the greatest interest. Zoological nomenclature serves the end of zoological classification and a modern classification should reflect phylogeny, and developmental evolution, on the different levels of taxa. Morphological differences, of which cranial and skeletal ones are the most important, still represent the basis for such a classification in Mammals. There is no doubt that there are no fundamental differences in the general plan of skull structure in living Felidae. We cannot here go deep into the details of the problem of evolution and its ways, and there is no need to do so in order to show that even the greatest morphological similarities are in no contradiction with quite different origins of the forms in question. The findings of fossil cats show more and more the diffi- culties we are facing, when trying to study interrelationship of different forms of the Felidae. The palaeontological evidence also seems to suggest that main groups of cats could be less related among themselves than generally believed. Hence, it appears we should finally admit the justification of different genera and subfamilies in the living Felidae. I would like to emphasize again that all the problems mentioned above have directly nothing to do with the problems of nomenclature. All the discussion which has gone on in this journal has only shown that the questions of interrelationships in the family Felidae are not clear. All this discussion has also shown the different opinions of various students and that can only be another reason that the generic name Panthera Oken, 1816 should be validated. A different opinion needs admittedly to be expressed in a formally correct way, if for nothing else than in the interest of defending zoological 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature nomenclature against confusion and in the interest of its stability. In my opinion the preservation of the generic name Panthera would be in the full accordance with these interests. In conclusion, I would like to subjoin and to support Morrison-Scott’s and Hemmer’s application for conservation of the generic name Panthera Oken, 1816. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 25, Parts 2/3. September 1968 : 66-67 FURTHER COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (MAMMALIA, CARNIVORA). Z.N.(S.) 482 (see volume 22, pages 230-232, volume 23, pages 67-70, volume 24, page 3 and pages 259-261, volume 25, pages 66-67) By Paul Leyhausen (Max-Planck-Institut fiir Verhaltensphysiologie, Abteilung Lorenz, Arbeitsgruppe Wuppertal, Germany) With reference to Morrison-Scott’s request (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 230-232, 1965) to validate the generic name of Panthera Oken, 1816, and to the subsequent remarks by Hershkovitz, de Avila-Pires, Tortonese and Hemmer, I wish to give full support to Morrison-Scott’s motion and the comments made by Hemmer. I should particularly like to emphasise that no researcher whose special work has been devoted to the large cats in the last 50 years has used Leo or any other generic name for them, and that—for want of something better—the “‘Classification of existing Felidae”’ is still best served by following Pocock (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1917). Cabrera, to me, is a very dubious authority, as he has written a catalogue but apart from that knew little about cats. Although I must admit to some sympathy with Hershkovitz’s philological and nomenclatorial pangs of conscience, I also feel that the purpose of nomenclature can only be to serve zoology, not harness it to a Procrustean bed. There is no room for a nomenclature as l’art pour l’art. Abandoning Panthera for whatever other name it might be would only create new confusion after all those actually working on these animals have adopted it. For the past ten years I have been doing intensive research on the relationship of the Felidae, starting from behaviour, but gradually adducing evidence from all other available material, such as anatomy, furs, caryology, serology. It is my opinion that, due to the complicated pattern of character distribution within the family, a better classification than the existing one can be achieved only by working simultaneously on all cat species without exception; which is what we here are trying to do. This is, of course, a time-consuming enterprise, and it will be at least another 5 or 10 years before we shall feel on sufficiently safe ground for publication. However, we are quite certain that many and surprising changes in classification will have to be made, and that any further ruling now by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of the kind suggested by Hemmer would be premature. It is certain that a number of genera are required, and that the generic name Felis should be con- fined to the group of cats included in that genus by Pocock (Catalogue of the Genus Felis, Trustees of the Brit. Museum, London, 1951) and Haltenorth (Die Wildkatzen der Allen Welt, Leipzig 1953). However, I strongly doubt the need for subfamily and subgeneric names within the family of Felidae and cannot, therefore, support Hemmer’s request for a ruling on a subgeneric name Tigris, as there is mounting evidence that neither the tiger nor the ounce has a particularly close relationship with Panthera proper, that is lion, leopard and jaguar. A study on the problem of hyoid bone ossification is in progress. There is reason to suspect that non-ossification of the epihyal bone in large cats is linked with body size rather than kinship. In short, I am thoroughly in favour of Tortonese’s comment (vol. 24, page 3) against issuing any rulings now which in all probability would have to be revoked or altered again in a few years’ time. I feel confident that in the not too distant future Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 sufficient evidence will be available to resolve apparent discrepancies between the work of Haltenorth, Hemmer, myself and other workers and to support the proposal of a nomenclature for all the Felidae which will last. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 25, Parts 4/5. January 1969 : 130 REFERENCES Avita-Pires, F.D. pe 1966. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 69-70 BLUMENBACH, J. F. 1775. De generis humani varietate nativa : 37 — 1779. Handb. Naturgesch. : 65 Hemmer, H. 1966. Verdff. Zool. Staatssaml. Miinchen 11 : 1-121 — 1967. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 259-261 HERSHKOVITZ, P. 1966. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 67-69 — 1967. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 261-262 LEYHAUSEN, P. 1969. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 130 Mayr, E. 1967. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 66 Mazak, V. 1968. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 66-67 Napier, J. R. & Napier, P. H. 1967. A Handbook of living Primates. London and New York Morrison-Scortt, T. C.S. 1965. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 230-232 TORTONESE, E. 1967. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 3 WALKER, E. P. 1968. Mammals of the World. 2nd ed. Baltimore The following selection of references is widely used in a variety of institutions concerned with zoology: Recent usage of Pan and Panthera:— International Zoo Yearbook Red data book. '\UCN UNESCO (Mammalia 2nd ed 1972) Zoological Record Recent usage of Pan:— Bibliotheca Primatologica Fiennes, R. 1967. Zoonoses of Primates. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London Folia Primatologica Harez, E. S. E. (Ed.). 1971. Comparative reproduction of non-human primates. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, USA Hit, W. C. O. 1972. Evolutionary biology of the primates. Academic Press. London & New York Morris, D. 1965. The mammals. Hodder & Stoughton in association with the Zoological Society of London. London Primates Recent usage of Panthera:— CRANDALL, L. S. 1964. Management of wild mammals in captivity. University of Chicago Press. Chicago & London Ewer, R. F. 1973. The carnivores. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. London Hsu, T. C. & BENIRISCHKE, K. 1967. Anatlas of mammalian chromosomes. Springer Verlag. Berlin, Heidelberg & New York SCHALLER, G. B. 1972. The Serengeti lion. University of Chicago Press. Chicago 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature APPLICATION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF DELPHINUS PERNETTENSIS de BLAINVILLE, 1817 AND DELPHINUS PERNETT YI DESMAREST, 1820. Z.N.(S.) 1974 By P. J. H. van Bree (Jnstituut voor Taxonomische Zoélogie, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands) The following paper by Dr. van Bree, was first published in Beaufortia volume 19, No. 244 on May 28, 1971 and is here republished by kind permission of the Director of the Institute of Taxonomic Zoology, University of Amsterdam and the board of editors of Beaufortia. Some references have been added by Dr. van Bree who, remarks: “Tt is almost impossible to send you a complete list of references of papers in which the name plagiodon has been used; that would be a very long list indeed. The name has been used currently in the section ‘Mammalia’ of the Zoological Record (e.g. see vol. 103 (1966) : 350). Except for the checklist by Hershkovitz (1966) and the paper by Fraser (1950) the name plagiodon has been the only one used during the past 70 years.” ON THE TAXONOMIC STATUS OF DELPHINUS PERNETTENSIS de BLAINVILLE, 1817 (NOTES ON CETACEA, DELPHINOIDEA II) ABSTRACT According to the author insufficient proofs exist to consider Stenel/la plagiodon (Cope, 1866) a junior synonym of Delphinus pernettensis de Blainville, 1817 or of Delphinus pernettyi Desmarest, 1820. To avoid further confusion the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to use their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the following specific names: a. pernettensis de Blainville, 1817, as published in the combination Delphinus pernettensis; b. pernettyi Desmarest, 1820, as published in the combination Delphinus pernettyi. In 1817, H. M. Ducrotay de Blainville described in the Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire Naturelle, edited by A. G. Desmarest, volume IX (:154), the dolphin species Delphinus pernettensis as follows: “TSous-genre — Delphinorhynchus] Quatritme Espéce — Dauphin de Pernetty (Delphinus Pernettensis, Blainville). Cette espéce, qui appartient peut-étre au sous-genre suivant [Delphinus], a été décrite et figurée par Pernetty, Voyage aux iles Malouines, p. 99, tab. II, fig. 1. L’animal pesoit cent livres, ce qui indique une trés-petite taille pour un cétacé; sa téte étoit terminée antérieure- ment par un bourrelet se prolongeant presque en bec d’oiseau et revétu d’une peau épaisse et grise. Ce bec étoit armé de dents aigués, blanches et de la forme de celle du brochet; la mAchoire inférieure parroisoit sensiblement plus longue que la supérieure; le dos étoit noiratre et le ventre d’un gris de perle, un peu jaunatre, moucheté de taches noires, et d’autres gris de fer. Les nageoires pectorales, attachées trés-bas, étoient arquées; la dorsale aussi arquée, étoit grande et placée assez prés de la queue.” Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 In another publication, two years later, Desmarest (1820 : 513) changed the name and called the species Delphinus Pernettyi. He did not indicate clearly he considered his spelling the right one, so in fact “‘pernettyi”’ is an incorrect subsequent spelling and therefore nomenclatorially non-existent. But even if we accept that Desmarest intended to correct the name, then it is an unjustified emendation and that thereby the name pernettyi has become a junior objective synonym of pernettensis. Fic. 1. Delphinus pernettensis and a seabird, probably a Noddy (Anous stolidus); after Perne(t)ty 1769 & 1770, pl. I. The above-cited diagnosis is very nondescript and can be applied to a number of species of dolphin. Already in 1827 (: 406), Lesson wrote about the species: “Cette espéce est douteuse et ne repose que sur une description imparfaite de Pernetty”. The species therefore, when cited, was placed incertae sedis and its description mostly ignored or forgotten (nomen dubium). True, in 1884, while describing a dolphin caught off Pensacola, which he thought to be identical with Prodelphinus (=Stenella) doris (Gray, 1846) but which turned out to be a specimen of Delphinus plagiodon Cope, 1866 (now Stenella plagiodon), compared his animal with the description of Delphinus pernettensis. He came to the conclusion (: 322): “If our Pensacola specimen is to be accredited to any species known only by the exterior, I believe it should be to this D. Pernetyi. As no portions of the animal were preserved, however, and no diagnosis or measurements were given, I think it undesirable to with- draw the species in question from the list of espéces douteuses.”’ 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature In later publications True does not refer again to the Dauphin de Pernetty, not even in his important revision of the Delphinidae (1889). Fraser in 1950, however, again referred to the diagnosis of Delphinus pernettensis in his study on Stenella frontalis. He also compares D. pernettensis with Stenella plagiodon and he says (: 64): “On the whole it seems likely that, as True (1884 : 322) indicated, Pernetty’s dolphin has its affinities with the specimen which True finally identified as belonging to S. plagiodon.” Fraser probably came to this carefully worded conclusion, because while reading the journal by Pernety (1769), he finds that the dolphin mentioned by the traveller is sighted first (: 77) near the Cape Verde Islands at 6°43’ N, 25°17’ W and caught (: 122) in the neighbourhood of the Abrolhos Archipelago at 16°44’ S, 35°10’ W (near the coast of Brazil). It must be noted that the positions mentioned are recorded in the old French way (cf. Meridian of Paris). As far as is now known, Stenella plagiodon inhabits subtropical and tropical waters at the Atlantic side of North and Central America, and its discovery in tropical waters near South-America would not come as a surprise. Therefore it cannot be excluded that a dolphin with a spotted pattern, caught near the Abrolhos Archipelago, could be a Stenella plagiodon and if so, this name could be a junior synonym of Delphinus pernettensis. The academic conclusion of Fraser, however, has been interpreted in the wrong way by Hershkovitz (1966: 41). This author (after Fraser) in his checklist of recent Cetacea considers Stenella plagiodon without any doubt to be a junior synonym of Delphinus pernettensis and he adopts the position near the Abrolhos Archipelago (see above) as the type locality of the species. The present author after studying the diagnosis by de Blainville (1817) and the notes by Fraser (1950) was struck by the difference between the pages of the book by Pernetty cited by both scientists. After investigation, it turned out that two editions exist of the ““Voyage aux iles Malouines”. The first one, published in Berlin (Etienne de Bourdeaux) in 1769 and in which the author is called Pernety (see latin name used by True, 1884), is very rare and only a few copies exist. The second edition (nouvelle édition) was published in 1770 in Paris (Saillant & Nyon-Delalain) and is more common. Checking both editions with reference to the description of the dolphin I found that Fraser was right in that in the 1769 edition the dolphins were first sighted near the Cape Verde Islands (: 77) and that a specirnen was caught near the Abrolhos Archipelago (: 122). In the second edition, however, on page 99 (and following ones) the author describes that the dolphins were seen and a specimen was caught between the islands Boa Vista and Maio of the Cape Verde Islands. Near the Abrolhos Archipelago (: 131) only a seabird, probably a Noddy (Anous stolidus), was caught (see the figure of the dolphin and the bird reproduced herewith; these figures are the same in both editions). As de Blainville (1817 : 154) refers to page 99 of the book by Pernetty it is clear that he had in hands the “nouvelle édition’’ and that according to him therefore, the type locality of the dolphin species of which he gives the diagnosis, is near the Cape Verde Islands and not in the neighbourhood of the Abrolhos Archipelago. As up to the present no specimen of Stenella plagiodon has been Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 caught near the African coast*), it is therefore very unlikely that Delphinus pernettensis and Stenella plagiodon are synonyms for the same species. As previously stated, the description of Delphinus pernettensis is very nondescript and can be applied to several species. For instance, see the description and photograph of a specimen of Stenella, named provisionally Stenella punctata (Gray, 1846), caught near the Cape Verde Islands in 1951 (Cadenat, 1956: 91; 1959: pl. 18). As nothing of the Pernetty’s dolphin has been preserved and we are therefore not able to check further identifications, for the sake of stability in nomenclature it would be unwise to attach value to the diagnosis and name of Delphinus pernettensis. The taxonomy of Cetacea is already too complicated to waste time on intellectual games, speculating on which dolphin species could be Delphinus pernettensis. The author therefore requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the following specific names: a. pernettensis de Blainville, 1817, as published in the combination Delphinus pernettensis; b. pernettyi Desmarest, 1820, as published in the combination Delphinus pernettyi. At the end of this short article I want to thank most sincerely Madame Dr. M. C. Saint Girons (Paris) and Dr. P. E. Purves (London) for their help in checking old publications and for the correction of the English. I am also grateful to Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Leiden) for his advice concerning zoological nomenclature. REFERENCES CADENAT, J. 1956. A propos du Cachalot.—Notes africaines (UI.F.A.N.), 71 : 82-92 — 1959. Rapport sur les petits Cétacés ouest-africains.—Bull. I.F.A.N., 21 (A) : 1367-1409, 31 pls. CADENAT, J. & LasSARAT, A. 1959. Notes sur les Delphinidés ouest-africains IV: Notes sur un Prodelphinus indéterminé de Cote d’Ivoire.—Bull. I.F.A.N., 21 (A) : 777-781, 5 pls. **Cope, E. D. 1866. Third contribution to the history of the Balaenidae and Delphinidae. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia 18 : 293-298 (Delphinus plagiodon : 296-297) (Desmarest, A. G. ed.] 1817. Nouveau dictionnaire d’histoire naturelle, etc. 9 Déterville, Paris : 1 + 1-624, 6 pls. Desmarest, A. G. 1820. Mammalogie ou description des espéces de mammiferes, Agasse, Paris : i-viii, 1-555+1, 112+14+12 pls **Ertiot, D.G. 1905. A checklist of mammals of the North American continent, the West Indies, and the neighboring seas. Publs. Field Mus. (Zool.) 105 : i-iv, 1-761 (Prodelphinus plagiodon : 33) Fraser, F. C. 1950. Description of a dolphin Stenella frontalis (Cuvier) from the coast of French Equatorial Africa.—Atlantide Rep., 1 : 61-84, 4 pls *A study of the skull of a dolphin caught off Abidjan (Ivory Coast), which according to Cadenat & Lassarat (1959) might be a Srenella plagiodon, revealed that it does not belong to that species but to Stenella frontalis (G. Cuvier, 1829). **These references are those added by Dr. van Bree after the publication of this paper in Beaufortia. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature **#Hai, E. R. & KELSON, K. R. 1959. The mammals of North America (2 vols.). Ronald Press Comp., New York : i-xxx, 1-546 HERSHKOVITZ, Ph. 1966. Catalog of living whales.—Bull. U.S. nation. Mus., 246: 1-VIII, 1-259. Lesson, R. P. 1827. Manuel de mammalogie, ou histoire naturelle des mammifeéres, Roret, Paris : i-xv, 1-441+1 **MILLER, G. S. 1924. List of North American recent mammals. Buill. U.S. natn. Mus. 128 : i-xvi, 1-673 (Prodelphinus plagiodon : 508) **MILLER, G. S. & KELLOG, R. 1955. List of North American recent mammals. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. 205 : i-xii, 1-954 (Stenella plagiodon : 656-657) Pernety, [A. J.] 1769. Journal historique d’un Voyage fait aux Iles Malouines en 1763 & 1764, etc, Etienne de Bourdeaux, Berlin : I-XVI, 3-403, 404-704+ 47, 16 pls. PeRNETTY, [A. J.] 1770. Histoire d’un voyage aux Isles Malouines fait en 1763 & 1764, etc.: Nouv. éd., Saillant & Nyon-Delalain, Paris : 1-385, 1-334+2, 16 pls. True, F. W. 1884. On a spotted dolphin apparently identical with Prodelphinus doris of Gray. Smiths. rep. for 1884 (2) : 317-324, 6 pls. — 1889. Contributions to the natural history of the cetaceans: A review of the family Delphinidae.—Bull. U.S. nation. Mus., 36 : 1-191, 47 pls. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 SESARMA TRAPEZIUM DANA, 1852 (CRUSTACEA : DECAPODA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS! Z.N.(S.) 2016 By Lawrence G. Abele (Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) The suppression of the specific name trapezium Dana, 1852, as published in the combination Sesarma trapezium and now known as Metasesarma trape- zium is requested here. The identity of this species and the actual type locality have so far never been established with certainty. As the name is probably a senior synonym of that of a well known western Atlantic species it poses a threat to nomenclatural stability. Although the type specimen was stated by Stimpson (1861, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1861 : 372-373) to be in the Smithsonian Institution, a search of this institution, of the Museum of Com- parative Zoology, Harvard University and of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University failed to locate any type or other material of this species. Dana (1852, Crustacea. In United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., 13 (1) : 1-685) described the new species Sesarma trapezium from the “Sandwich Islands”. He gave a short description and in 1855 (Atlas. Crustacea. In United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., pls. 1-96.) published figures of this species. Stimpson (op. cit.) examined Dana’s material in the Smithsonian Institution and placed S. trapezium in the genus Metasesarma. The material has since been lost, presumably having been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871 (see Evans, 1967, J. Nat. Hist., 1 : 399-411). The species Metasesarma trapezium has been mentioned by seven authors in eight different works but only Dana and Stimpson examined actual material, viz., the type material. Despite several surveys and much collecting in the Hawaiian Islands, the species has not been found there (Rathbun, 1906, Bull. U.S. Fish. Comm., 23 (3) : 829-930; Edmondson, 1959, Occ. Pap. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., 22 (10) : 153-202). In fact, no species of the genus Metasesarma is known to occur in the Hawaiian Islands. Rathbun (1897, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 11 : 89-92) described the new species Sesarma rubripes from Bahia (El Salvador), Brazil. At that time she did not recognize the genus Metasesarma. In her 1918 monograph (Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., 97 : 320) she placed the species S. rubripes in the genus Metasesarma and noted a “suspicious resemblance”’ between this species and S. trapezium. She was evidently unaware of, or had overlooked the fact that S. trapezium had been placed in the genus Metasesarma. 1Scientific contribution No. 1748 from the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami. This was supported by Research Grant No. 7075X from the National Science Foundation. I thank Dr. Lipke B. Holthuis for his advice and comments. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Comparison of Dana’s description and figures of S. trapezium with descrip- tions, figures and material of M. rubripes reveals no differences between these two species and they should be considered conspecific. Metasesarma rubripes occurs in the western Atlantic, including the coast of Brazil. It is found there in areas visited by the U.S. Exploring Expedition where material was collected. It is a well known fact that the material collected during the U.S. Exploring Expedition has not been handled with proper care. It seems possible that the type material of Sesarma trapezium may have been mislabelled as to locality and that the material may have actually come from Brazil. The name Metasesarma rubripes is used, as it is in smaller papers, such as Abele, 1972 (Carib. J. Sci., 12 (3/4) : 165) and Moreira, 1903 (Archos Mus. nac. Rio de J. 12: 112, pl. 1), in the fundamental works on the American Grapsidae by Rathbun (1918), in Boschi’s (1964, Bol. Inst. Mar. Biol., Argentina, 6 : 64) monograph on the Argentinian Brachyura, in Diaz and Ewald’s (1968, Crustaceana suppl., 2 : 225) study on larval development and most recently in Chace and Hobbs’ (1969, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., 292 : 175) handbook on the freshwater and terrestrial decapods of the West Indies. Thus in three major works on the systematics of the western Atlantic Brachyura, as well as in all smaller papers dealing with that fauna, the name M. rubripes has been consistently applied to a single well known species while the name M. trapezium has not been applied to any material since 1861. Regret- tably, I am not able to provide more references than those by six authors in seven publications and I am therefore aware that the conditions laid down in Art. 79(b) of the Code are unfulfilled. The holotype (preserved in the British Museum of Natural History) and other material of M. rubripes is available while evidently no type material of M. trapezium is extant. In view of the well established usage of the specific name rubripes and the confusion which would result if this name were substituted by trapezium it seems best to suppress the latter name trapezium. The action that is now requested from the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature is that they: (1) make use of their plenary powers to suppress for the purpose of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the specific name trapezium an published in the combination Sesarma trapezium Dana, 1852 and; (2) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name trapezium Dana, 1852, as suppressed under (1) above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51 LOLIGO STEARNSII HEMPHILL, 1892 (MOLLUSCA, CEPHALOPODA): REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.AS.) 2041 By Gilbert L. Voss (Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, 10 Rickenbacker Causeway, Virginia Key, Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) 1. Anew species of squid, Loligo stearnsii, was described by Henry Hemphill (1892 : 51) from specimens purchased in the San Francisco and Oakland, California fish markets. The fish dealers said these were “‘taken in nets outside the Heads by the Chinese fishermen.” The description consists of the following statements. “The body and arms of my largest specimen measured about 10 inches, the two longest arms being about three inches longer. The arms are not webbed, but each of the eight short ones have two rows of suckers their entire length, while the other arms have a small patch of small suckers toward their tips .. . nine individuals . . . weigh a pound, so we may say they weigh about two ounces each. . . . In the form of its body and the coloring, as well as in the form of the fin, it closely resembles Loligo gahi D’Orbigny. . . .This form makes an interesting addition to our west coast Cephalopods, and if upon further study I should conclude it to be new, I propose to call it Loligo Stearnsii.”’ No type material was mentioned or known to exist. 2. Hoyle (1897 : 370) in his Catalogue of Recent Cephalopoda listed L. Stearnsii from the California region and in a footnote stated ‘“‘This is a mere nomen nudum: the description is quite worthless, as the species could never be recognized from it.’’ However, the value of the description has nothing to do with the definition of a nomen nudum. 3. §S.S. Berry (1911 : 591) described a new squid, Loligo opalescens, from Puget Sound, Washington. The type was deposited in the collections of Stanford University. 4. Ina subsequent review of the cephalopods of western North America, Berry (1912 : 294) included L. Stearnsii questionably in the synonymy of L. opalescens. Later (p. 297) he stated his reasons for rejecting L. stearnsii were. “It will be observed that the only ‘diagnosis’ offered is to be found in the lines, ‘The arms are not webbed,’ and ‘it closely resembles Loligo Gahi.’” As it is upon these ten words alone that the validity of the name L. stearnsii must rest, it would seem that Dr. Hoyle was fully justified in his refusal to recognize it as more than a mere nomen nudum. The present writer was at first inclined to rehabilitate Hemphill’s name and furnish it with the needful description, especially since he could not believe that the form in hand was really the one here dealt with, but in view of the suspicion that we have more than one Loligo on the coast, not to mention the obvious discrepancy in the statement that ‘the arms are not webbed,’ the safest course appeared to be to discard the title L. stearnsii entirely and adopt an entirely new name.” 5. In 1973 Mr. Allyn Smith, formerly curator of the invertebrate collections of the California Academy of Science, informed the writer that two specimens Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of Loligo stearnsii, preserved in alcohol, were in the Henry Hemphill collection when it was acquired by the California Academy of Sciences and were acces- sioned into the Type Collection of the Department of Geology as Syntypes Nos. 2321 and 2322. Both specimens came from “Oakland Market’ (Depart- ment of Geology locality No. 11,604) according to current labels. These specimens have now been transferred to the Department of Invertebrate Zoology. Along with the two preserved whole animals there are three dry- preserved gladii, also labelled Loligo stearnsii, which are indicated as coming from ‘San Francisco Bay, California (H. Hemphill locality 5)”. The present labels are in the handwriting of G. Dallas Hanna who transferred the specimens from the original jars to sealed lengths of fluorescent tubing. They are desig- nated as Syntypes. It is presumed that Hanna recopied the deteriorated original labels but no positive proof now exists. From the information available it seems probable that these indeed are the types of L. stearnsii as they are from the Oakland Market as originally designated, and dissected pens are also present. 6. Examination of the two specimens shows that they are identical with L. opalescens. Both Berry and Hoyle were incorrect in stating that L. stearnsii was a nomen nudum. No other species of the genus Loligo is known to occur on the western coast of North America north of San Diego. Therefore, L. opalescens Berry, 1911, is a junior synonym of L. stearnsii Hemphill, 1892. 7. The name L. stearnsii was used only sparsely from 1892 to 1911 when L. opalescens was described. Since 1911 it has rarely appeared and has never been used in primary scientific literature except as a questionable synonym or as a nomen nudum. 8. Since 1912 all students of cephalopods, without exception, have used the specific name opalescens. It is firmly established in teaching texts and laboratory manuals, the extensive fisheries literature and medical research literature. In accordance with Article 79(b) of the Code, the following is a list of authors, all of whom have employed opalescens in the last 50 years: Classic, R. R., 1929; Fields, W. G., 1950, 1965; Frey, H. W., 1971; Iverson, I. L. K. & Pinkas, L., 1971; MacGinitie, G. E. & MacGinitie, N., 1968; McGowan, J. A., 1954: Mercer, M. C., 1969; Okutani, T. & McGowan, J. A., 1969; Voss, G. L., 1973 and Zuev, G. V. & Nesis, K. N., 1971. 9. In order to maintain nomenclatural stability in this group of animals, and to prevent confusion in the fisheries, medical and academic literature, Loligo opalescens should be preserved as the valid name for this species im- portant to the commercial fisheries and to medical research. 10. It is therefore requested of the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature to: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name stearnsii Hemphill, 1892, as published in the binomen Loligo stearnsii, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the specific name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 (3) place the specific name opalescens Berry, 1911, as published in the binomen Loligo opalescens, in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED Berry, S. S. 1911. Preliminary notices of some new Pacific cephalopods. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., 40 (1838) : 589-592 —— 1912. A review of the cephalopods of Western North America. Bull. Bur. Fish., Wash., 30 : 269-336 Crassic, R. R. 1929. Monterey squid fishery. Calif. Fish. Game 15 (4) : 317-320 Frecps, W. G. 1950. A preliminary report on the fishery and on the biology of the squid, Loligo opalescens. Calif. Fish. Game 36 (4) : 366-377 — 1965. The structure, development, food relations, reproduction, and life history of the squid Loligo opalescens Berry. Fish. Bull. Calif. No. 131 : 1-108 Frey, H. W. 1971. Squid. Jn: California’s living marine resources. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game : 33-34 HempuHiLt, H. 1892. Note ona California Loligo. Zoe 3:51 Hoyie, W. E. 1897. A catalogue of Recent Cephalopoda. Supplement, 1887- 1896. Proc. R.phys. Soc. Edinb. : 363-375 Iverson, I. L. K. and Pinkas, L. 1971. A pictorial guide to beaks of certain eastern Pacific cephalopods. Fish. Bull. Calif. No. 152 : 83-105 [p. 91, figs of beaks, etc.] Maceinitig, G. E. and MaAcainitie, N. 1968. Natural History of Marine animals. Second edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company : 523 pp. [Loligo opalescens p. 400-401] Mccowan, J. A. 1954. Observation on the sexual behaviour and spawning of the squid, Loligo opalescens, at La Jolla, California. Calif. Fish. Game 40 (1): 47-54 Mercer, M. C. 1969. A synopsis of the recent Cephalopoda of Canada. Proc. Symp. Mollusca, India Part 1, 1968 : 265-276 [pp. 269, 271] OKuTANI, T. and McGowan, J. A. 1969. Systematics, distribution, and abundance of the epiplanktonic squid (Cephalopoda, Decapoda) larvae of the California Current, April, 1954-March, 1957. Bull. Scripps Instn Oceanogr. 14 : 1-90 [Loligo (s.s.) opalescens Berry, 1911 p. 8] Voss, G. L. 1973. Cephalopod resources of the world. Fisheries Circular, F.A.O., Rome (In press) ZueEv, G. V. and Nesis, K. N. 1971. [Biology and fishery of squids]. Pishchevaya, Moscow : 360 pp. [In Russian. L. opalescens, pp. 127-133] 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CYCLOGYRA WOOD, 1842 (FORAMINIFERIDA): PROPOSAL FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2051 By Richard W. Ponder (Geology Department, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.) 1. Prior to 1961 the generic name Cyclogyra Wood (1842), had fallen into disuse for over a hundred years. It was reinstated by Loeblich and Tappan (1961) and the well known genus Cornuspira Schultze (1854) placed in its synonymy. Contemporary foraminiferal workers are now divided on which genus has priority. To maintain stability and prevent confusion the Inter- national Commission is asked to discard the name Cyclogyra and its type species C. multiplex on the basis of the arguments given below. 2. Wood introduced Cyclogyra in 1842 (p. 458, pl. 5, fig. 5), with a vague, brief description. He only included one species in Cyclogyra, C. multiplex Wood (1842), which is the type by monotypy (Article 68). There was no active use of Cyclogyra for well over a century and in the two references to it during this period, Sherborn (1896, p. 481) regarded it as synonymous with Cornuspira and Galloway (1933, p. 109) placed it in synonymy with Cornuspira as a nomen dubium. Consequently, as Resig (1969, p. 57) suggests, Cyclogyra should be considered a nomen oblitum (Article 23b), even though subsequent to 1961 Cyclogyra has been actively used. In 1961 Loeblich and Tappan (p. 290) synonymised Cornuspira with Cyclogyra and erected the Subfamily Cyclo- gryinae, as a substitute name for Subfamily Cornuspirinae Rhumbler (1904). In 1964 they substituted Family Cornuspiridae Schultz (1854) for Family Fischerinidae Millett (1898). Even though since 1961 several species have been referred to Cyclogyra no new species have appeared in the literature (up to at least 1969). 3. Wood collected C. multiplex from the Pliocene of England. Since its introduction it has not been used in the literature except its mention in Loeblich and Tappan (1961, 1964) as the type of Cyclogyra. Morphologically, it appears indistinguishable from Cornuspira involvens (Reuss, 1850), which has been recorded from early Tertiary to Recent. It seems therefore most likely that C. involvens is a junior synonym of C. multiplex. However, C. involvens is extremely well entrenched in the literature with more references to it than any other member of Cornuspira (see Cushman, 1929, p. 80, 81). Its synonymy with C. multiplex therefore would undoubtedly create considerable confusion. In contrast there will be no effect on the literature, at the species level, if C. multiplex was made a nomen oblitum. 4. Schultze (1854, p. 40, pl. 2, figs. 21, 22) introduced Cornuspira with a clear description lacking only characteristics of the wall structure. He also described two new species at length, C. planorbis (loc. cit. p. 40) and C. perforata (loc. cit. p. 41), (a member of the equivalent perforate calcareous genus Spiril- lina) and briefly discusses other species belonging to Cornuspira. Brady (1884, p. 199) designated one of these species, Orbis foliaceus Philippi (1844), Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 as the type species. Since the introduction of Cornuspira over 100 years ago, it has been firmly entrenched in the literature with the following species placed within it: Cornuspira (Psammophis) anguineus Cherdynzev, 1914; C. angulata Deecke, 1884; C. antarctica Rhumbler, 1931; C. archimedes Stache, 1864; C. aspera Terquem, 1870; C. augusta Friedberg, 1902; C. bayonnensis Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. biedermanni Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. bornemanni Reuss, 1863; C. byramensis Cushman, 1935; C. carinata (Costa) Brady, 1884; C. foliacea carinata Silvestri, 1893; C. charoides Heron-Allen and Earland, 1914; C. concava Terquem, 1870; C. concava Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. concava Spandel, 1898; C. conica Spandel, 1912; C. convexa Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. cordiforma Protescu, 1922; C. corticata Chapman and Parr, 1937; C. crassa Zwingli and Kubler, 1870; C. crassisepta Brady, 1882; C. cretacea Reuss, 1845; C. denticulata Heron-Allen and Earland, 1932; C. diffusa Heron-Allen and Earland, 1913; C. eichbergensis Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. elliptica Stache, 1864; C. elliptica Zwingli and Kibler, 1870; C. carinata expansa Chapman, 1915; C. filiformis Reuss, 1868; C. (Psammophis) filiformis Cherdynzev, 1914; C. foliacea (Philippi) Carpenter, Parker and Jones, 1862; C. fragilis Le Roy, 1944; C. gracilis Zwingli and Kiibler, 1888; C. granulosa Terquem, 1870; C. helvetica Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. hornesi Karrer, 1865; C. infima (Strickland) Tate and Blake, 1876; C. infroolithica Terquem, 1870; C. inter- media, Giimbel, 1873; C. involvens (Reuss) Reuss, 1863; C. (Hemigordius) japonica Ozawa, 1925; C. kamae Cherdynzey, 1914; C. kinkelini Spandel, 1898; C. lacunosa Brady, 1884; C. lajollaensis Uchio, 1960; C. latior Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. /ewisensis Beck, 1943; C. liasina Terquem, 1866; C. lisbonensis Bandy, 1949; C. marginata Sars, 1868; C. media, Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. megasphaerica Gerke in Miklukho-Maclay, 1963, 1970; C. microsphaerica Miklukho-Maclay, 1963; C. modlingensis Toula, 1915; C. neudorfensis Toula, 1914; C. numismalis (Terquem and Berthelin), Burbach, 1886; C. nummulitica Giimbel, 1868; C. obscura Heron-Allen and Earland, 1924; C. occlusa Terquem, 1870; C. olygogyra Hantken, 1875; C. oolithica Schwager, 1868; C. orbicula (Terquem and Berthelin) Deecke, 1886; C. pachygyra Hantken, 1875; C. perforata Schultze, 1854; C. planorbis Schultze, 1854; C. plicata (Czjzek), Bogdanovich, 1952; C. polarisans Rhumbler, 1911; C. polygyra Reuss, 1863; C. primitiva Rhumbler, 1903; C. primitiva Bartenstein and Brand, 1951; C. pussila Chuvashoy, 1965; C. punctulata Terquem, 1870; C. pygmaea Andreae, 1884; C. reussi Bornemann, 1855; C. rugulosa Reuss, 1856; C. schlumbergeri Howchin, 1895; C. selseyensis Heron-Allen and Earland, 1909; C. senonica Dunikowski, 1879; C. spandeli Paalzow, 1935; C. striolata Brady, 1882; C. subprimitiva Bartenstein and Brand, 1952; C. involvens substriatula Cushman, 1921; C. tasmanica Parr, 1950; C. tentaculata Rhumbler, 1911; C. tenuissima (Gumbel) Schwagner, 1865; C. thompsoni Cushman and Waters, 1928; C. undulata Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. variabilis Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870. 5. Foraminiferal taxonomists agree that Cornuspira encompasses por- cellanous species with an undivided planispirally coiled tube with the aperture situated at the end of the tube. There has however been some confusion in which species is the type of Cornuspira and in which genus C. foliacea should be 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature placed. The chamber in C. foliacea becomes somewhat flattened in later ontogeny due to chamber height increasing more rapidly than chamber thick- ness. Inthe juvenile test chamber height and thickness are of similar dimensions as in C. planorbis (the only porcellanous species described by Schultze). Brady (1884) probably chose Orbis foliaceus as the type species of Cornuspira as he, like earlier workers including Williamson (1858) and Parker and Jones (1865), considered it the senior synonym of C. planorbis. Also C. foliacea was the best known and first described species belonging to Cornuspira. Though Cushman (1917, p. 24) followed this designation, Cushman (1927, p. 188) considered C. planorbis a distinct species. He changed the type designation to C. planorbis on the basis that the previous designation was in error as Schultze had not listed C. foliacea as an included species at the establishment of Cornuspira. 6. Wiesner (1931), followed by several other authors, then considered C. foliacea to be a member of Cornuspiroides (which differs from Cornuspira in its later uncoiled flabelliform test) due to the rather expanded, flattened chambers in later ontogeny. Loeblich and Tappan (1964) however show that C. foliacea was one of the names used by Schultze under Cornuspira and the original designation of Brady (Cushman, 1917, in Loeblich and Tappan) must stand. They previously (1961) had synonymised Cornuspira with Cyclogyra and this synonymy was retained by them. They retained Cornuspiroides as a separate genus. 7. C. foliacea spans from Tertiary to Recent. Records include: Orbis foliaceus Philippi, 1844 : 147. Spirillina foliacea Williamson, 1858 : 91. Cornuspira foliacea Carpenter, Parker and Jones, 1862 : 68. — Brady, 1864 : 472. — Reuss, 1865: 121.—Parker and Jones, 1865 : 408.—Jones, Parker and Brady, 1866 : 2.— Brady, 1867 : 92. — Reuss, 1867 : 67. — Karrer, 1868 : 131. - Reuss, 1870 : 464. — Schlicht, 1870, pl. 35, figs. 11, 12.— Brady, 1870 : 45. - Parker, Jones and Brady, 1871 : 238.—Schwager, 1877 : 27. —Biitschli, 1880 : 189.— Moebius, 1880 : 76.—Goes, 1882 : 120.—Brady, 1884 : 199. - Balkwill and Wright, 1885 : 326. — Howchin, 1889 : 4. — Wright, 1891 : 465. — Egger, 1893 : 247. — Silvestri, 1893 : 191. - Woodward, 1893 : 77. — Fornasini, 1893 : 431.—Goes, 1894 : 106.—Hosius, 1895 : 77.—Silvestri, 1895 : 41.—- Jones, 1895 : 128.— Goes, 1896 : 79.—Morton, 1897 : 114.- Millett, 1898 : 612. — Flint, 1899 : 303.—Kiaer, 1900 : 22.—Rhumbler, 1903 : 287. — Chap- man, 1907 : 24.— Bagg, 1908 : 123. — Heron-Allen and Earland, 1909 : 318. — Sidebottom, 1910: 7.—Cushman, 1913 :11.—Heron-Allen and Earland, 1913 : 36.—Pearcey, 1914 : 996.—Heron-Allen and Earland, 1915 : 592. - Heron-Allen and Earland, 1916 :216.—Chapman, 1917 : 60.— Cushman, 1917 : 24. —Halkyard, 1919: 18.—Cushman, 1921 : 387.—Cushman, 1922: 14. — Heron-Allen and Earland, 1922 : 73.—Heron-Allen and Earland, 1924 pl. 7, fig. 11. - Hanna and Church, 1928 : 197. - Cushman, 1928 : 79. — Heron- Allen and Earland, 1932 : 324.—Earland, 1933 : 50.—Hofker, 1933 : 93.- Earland, 1934 : 52. — Lolom, 1942 : 29. — Agip, 1957, Tav. 8.-Reed, 1965 : 66. Cornuspiroides foliaceum (Philippi). - Wiesner, 1931 : 61. - Bermudez, 1949 ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 113. — Uchio, 1960 : 10. — Hofker, 1960 : 240. — Barker, 1960 : 22. — Andersen, 1961 : 44. — Eade, 1967 : 23. Cyclogyra foliacea (Philippi). - Moncharmont, 1968 : 13. — Albani, 1970 : 73. 8. With the synonymy of Cornuspira with Cyclogyra in 1961 the taxonomic continuity which had existed for over 100 years was broken and foraminiferal workers have been divided on which genus should have priority (see Resig, 1969, p. 57; Reitlinger, 1969, p. 3). Some have used Cornuspira including Andersen, 1961; Arnold, 1968; Bermudez and Seiglie, 1963; Boltovoskoy, 1963; Boltovoskoy and Lena, 1966; Cebulski, 1969; Chuvashov, 1965; Cita, 1964; Cooper, 1964; Gibson, 1967; Goke, 1963; Gordon, 1967; Hornibrook, 1961; Hulme, 1964; Knauff, 1966; Kustanovich, 1965; Le Campion, 1970; Lee, Pierce, Tentchoff, McLaughlin, 1961; Le Roy, 1964; Leischner, 1961; Lloyd, 1962; Madeira, 1969; Mamet and Belford, 1968; Matsunga, 1963; Miklukho- Maclay, 1963, 1970; Pezzani, 1963; Rao, 1969, 1971; Reed, 1965; Resig, 1969; Reitlinger, 1969; Seiglie, 1971; Smith, 1973; Temirbekova, 1972; Todd, 1961, 1966; Todd and Low, 1967, 1967, 1971; Toomey, 1972; Vilks, 1969; Watkins, 1961. Others have used Cyclogyra including Akers and Dorman, 1964; Albani, 1970; Bock, 1971; Chiji and Lopez, 1968; Eade, 1967; Gupta, 1971; Haman, 1971; Haynes, 1973; Hedley, Hurdle and Burdett, 1967; Lewis, 1970; Loeblich and Tappan, 1961, 1964; Lynts, 1962; Marcharmont, 1968; Matoba, 1970; Murray, 1968, 1969, 1970; Srinivasan, 1966; Ujiie and Kusukawa, 1969; Wright, 1968; Zaninetti and Brénimann, 1969. A most disagreeable result. 9. Cornuspira is also the type-genus of the Family Cornuspiridae Schultze (1854) and Subfamily Cornuspirinae Schultze (1854) nomen translatum Rhum- bler, 1904, p. 284), both of which cannot be changed in name or definition if Cornuspira were rejected as a junior synonym in favour of Cyclogyra (Article 40). The substitutes that Loeblich and Tappan (1961, 1964) suggest, Family Fischerinidae Millett (1893) and Cyclogyrinae Loeblich and Tappan (1961), were introduced after 1960 and must be considered invalid (Article 40). 10. To sum up: The type species of Cornuspira, C. foliacea (Philippi, 1844) Schultz (1854): and Family Cornuspiridae Schultze (1854) have been in general usage since their introduction. Subsequent to 1960 there has been widespread taxonomic confusion with the above supra specific taxa sometimes appearing in the synonymy of the genus Cyclogyra Wood (1842) which at 1960 had the status of a nomen oblitum, Subfamily Cyclogyrininae Loeblich and Tappan (1961), and Family Fischerinidae Millett (1893) respectively. The type species of Cyclogyra, C. multiplex Wood (1842), has only been noted in the literature by Loeblich and Tappan (1961, 1964) and never used since its intro- duction. If C. multiplex is retained it will probably have to become the senior synonym of the extremely well known species Cornuspira involvens Reuss (1850). 11. The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) the generic name Cyclogyra Wood, 1842, type-species by mono- typy, Cyclogyra multiplex Wood, 1842, 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) the specific name multiplex Wood, 1842, as published in the binomen Cyclogyra multiplex, (2) to place the generic name Cornuspira Schultze, 1854 (gender : feminine), type-species by subsequent designation by Brady (1884), Orbis foliaceus Philippi, 1844 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (3) to place the specific name foliaceus Philippi, 1844, as published in the binomen Orbis foliaceus (type-species of Cornuspira Schultze, 1854) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Cyclogyra Wood, 1842 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology; (5) to place the specific name multiplex Wood, 1842, as published in the binomen Cyclogyra multiplex (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. BIBLIOGRAPHY Brapy, H. B. 1884. Report on the Foraminifera dredged by H.M.S. Challenger, during the years 1873-1876. Rept. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 9 : 1-814 CusHMAN, J. A. 1929. The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean Pt. 6 Miliolidae. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 104 : 1-101 GALLowAyY, J. J. 1933. A manual of Foraminifera. James Furman Kemp Mem. Ser., Publ. : 1-483 LogesLticH, A. R. Jr. and Tappan, H. 1961. Suprageneric classification of the Rhizopodea. J. Paleontology 35 : 245-330 — 1964. Sarcodina chiefly ‘‘thecamoebians’ and Foraminiferida. In: Moore, aS C., (Ed.) Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geol. Soc. Am. 1-2 : Cl- 100 MILLETT, F. W. 1898. Report on the Recent Foraminifera of the Malay Archi- pelago collected by Mr. A. Durrand, F.R.M.S.—Part III. Roy. Micro. Soc., J : 607-614 REITLINGER, E. A. 1969. K Sistematike Paleozoiskikh Kornuspirid. Akad. Nauk. SSR, Vop. Mikropal. 11 : 3-17 (Russian) Resic, J. M. 1969. Paleontological investigations of deep borings on the Ewa Plain, Oahu, Hawaii. Hawaii Inst. Geophys. 69 (2) : 1-99 RHUMBLER, L. 1904. Systematische Zusammenstellung der recenten Reticulosa. Archiv Protistenkunde. 3 : 181-294 ScHuLTzE, M. S. 1854. Ueber den Organismus der Polythalamien (Foraminiferen), nebst Bemerkungen iiber die Rhizopoden im Allgemeinen. Leipzig : 1-68 SHERBORN, C. D. 1896. An index to the genera and species of the Foraminifera Smithsonian Misc. Coll. No. 1031 : 241-485 THALMANN, H. E. 1960. An index to the genera and species of the Foraminifera, 1890-1950. G. Vanderbilt Found. Stanford Univ. California : 1-393 Woop, S. V. 1842. A catalogue of shells from the Crag. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (ser. 1) 9 : 455-462 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 PLATYSTOMATIDAE SCHINER, 1862; PROPOSED CONSERVATION AS A FAMILY-GROUP NAME OVER ACHIIDAE FLEMING, 1821 (INSECTA, DIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 2053 By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, clo U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) and David K. McAlpine (The Australian Museum, 6-8 College Street, Sydney 2000, New South Wales, Australia) A large, worldwide group of acalyptrate Diptera has been known as Platys- tomidae, Platystomatidae, Platystominae, or Platystomatinae, either as a family or as a subfamily of Otitidae (—Ortalidae) ever since its proposal by Schiner, 1862 : 151, as Platystominae. The taxon has also been designated by family- group names bearing a few other endings, but all based upon the genus-name Platystoma Meigen, 1803 (genitive platystomatis). 2. It is clear, however, that the family-group name Achiidae, based upon the genus-name Achias Fabricius, 1805 (genitive achiae) and first used by Fleming (1821 : 55) in the form Achiasidae, has priority over Platystomatidae. The only other instances of the use of group-names based upon Achias that we can find are the following: (Familia) Achiidarum — Wiedemann. 1830 : 11. Achiadae — Bigot, 1852 : 486. Achiasidae — Fleming, 1822 : 846 (vol. 2); Bigot, 1853 : 312; 1892 : 191. Achiides — Walker, 1857 : 36; 1859 : 121; 1864 : 229. Achinae — Schiner, 1868 : 229. Achiinae — Brauer, 1880 : 118 (14). 3. The 2 genera Achias and Platystoma are closely related to each other and have generally been placed in the same narrowest named group since Hendel (1914a, 1914b) placed both in the final section of his generic keys under the titles “Lamprogastrina und Platystomina’”’ and ““Lamprogastrina, Loxoneurina, und Platystomina”’ respectively. These group-taxa were, however, not further defined. As a small selection of the more comprehensive works wherein the name Platystomatidae or other forms based upon the same generic name have been used, the following may be cited: Becker et al. (1905, as Platystomina); Bezzi (1928, as Platystominae); Brues and Melander (1932); Brues, Melander and Carpenter (1954); Colyer and Hammond (1951); Enderlein (1924, as Platystomidae, incl. Achias); Harrison (1959, as Platystomidae); Hendel (1914a, 1914b, as Platystomina); Hennig (1945, as Platystomidae); Malloch (1939, as Platystominae, incl. Achias); Séguy (1934, as Platystomidae). 4. In view of these circumstances, amounting to an overwhelming pre- dominance of usage of the names based upon Platystoma and virtual discarding of any based upon Achias, we petition the Commission :— Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy the family-group name ACHIIDAE Fleming, 1821; (2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name PLATYSTOMATIDAE Schiner, 1862, Wien. ent. Monatschr. 6: 151 (as PLATYSTOMINAE); type-genus Platystoma Meigen, 1803 (genitive stem Platystomat-); (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name ACHIIDAE Fleming, 1821, in Suppl. Encycl. Brit., vol. 5 : 55 (as Achiasidae) ; type-genus Achias Fabricius, 1805 (genitive stem Achi-). REFERENCES BECKER, T., ET AL. 1905. Katalog der palaarktischen Dipteren. Band IV. Budapest Bezzi, M. 1928. Diptera Brachycera of the Fiji Islands. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.). Bicot, J. M.F. 1852. Essai d’une classification générale et synoptique de l’ordre des insectes diptéres. Annis. Soc. ent. Fr. Sér. (2) 10 : 471-489 — 1853. Note pour servir de complément et de correction a 1|’Essai (etc., as above). Annis. Soc. ent. Fr. Sér. (3) 1 : 295-317 — 1892. Catalogue of the Diptera of the Oriental region. Part II. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 61 (pt. I, no. 2) : 133-236 BRAUER, F. 1880. Die Zweifliigler des Kaiserlichen Museums zu Wien. I. Denkschr. ost. Akad. Wiss. 42 : 106-216, pls. 1-6 (separatum pp. 1-112) Bruges, C. T. and A. L. MELANDER. 1932. Classification of Insects. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. 73 : 1-672 —, MELANDeER, A. L. and CARPENTER, F. M. 1954. Classification of Insects. Revised edition. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Hary. 108 : 1-917 Coryer, C. N., and Hammonp, C. O. 1951. Flies of the British Isles. Frederick Warne & Co., Ltd., London & New York : 1-383 ENDERLEIN, G. 1924. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Platystominen. Mitt. zool. Mus. Berl. 11 (1) : 99-153 FLEMING, J. 1821. Insects. Jn Stewart, D., et al., Napier, M., ed. Supplement to 4th, 5th and 6th editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. 5, pt. 1. Edinburgh: A. Constable & Co. (Date of July, 1821 is given in Vol. 6, p. 837, note; author- ship is given in list of contributors in Vol. 1). FLEMING, J. 1822. The philosophy of zoology, or a general view of the structure, functions, and classification of animals. 2 vols. Edinburgh: A. Constable & Co. Frey, R. 1921. Studien iiber den Bau des Mundes der niederen Diptera Schizo- phora nebst Bemerkungen iiber die Systematik dieser Dipterengruppe. Acta Soc. Fauna Flora fenn. 48 (3) : 1-245, pls. 1-10 — 1964. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der ostasiatischen Platystomiden (Diptera). Notul. ent. 44 : 1-19, 3 unnumbered pls. Harrison, R. A. 1959. Acalyptrate Diptera of New Zealand. Bull. N.W. Dept. scient. ind. Res. 128 : i-viii, 1-382 HENDEL, F. 1914a. Die Arten der Platystominen. Abh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 8 (1) : 1-409, pls. 14 — 1914b. Diptera, Fam. Muscaridae, Subfam. Platystominae. Genera Insect. 157 : 1-179, pls. 1-15 HENNIG, W. 1945. Platystomidae. Jn Linder, E., Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. 5 (Fam. 48, Lfg. 155) : 1-56, pls. 1-3 Mattocu, J. R. 1939. The Diptera of the Territory of New Guinea. VII. Family Otitidae (Ortalidae). Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 64 : 97-144, pls. 4-5 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 Scuiner, I. R. 1862. Vorlaufiger Commentar zum dipterologischen Theile der “Fauna austriaca.” IV. Wien. ent. Monatschr. 6 : 143-152 — 1868. Diptera. Jn [Wiillerstorf-Urbair, B. von, ed.] Reise der dsterreichischen Fregatte Novara. Zool., Vol. 2, Abt. 1, [Sect.] B. 388 pp., 4 pls. Wien SEcuy, E. 1934. Diptéres Brachycéres (Muscidae Acalypterae et Scatophagidae). Faune Fr. 28 : 832 pp WALKER, F. 1857. Catalogue of the Dipterous insects collected at Singapore and Malacca by Mr. A. R. Wallace, with descriptions of new species. J. Proc. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 1 : 4-39, pls. 1-2 — 1858-1859. Catalogue of the Dipterous insects collected in the Aru Islands by Mr. A. R. Wallace, with descriptions of new species. J. Proc. Linn. Soc. (Zool) 3 : 77-110 — 1864. Catalogue of the Dipterous insects collected in Waigiou, Mysol, and North Ceram by Mr. A. R. Wallace, with descriptions of new species. J. Proc. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 7 : 202-238 WIEDEMANN, C. R. W. 1830. Aussereuropdische zweifliigelige Insekten. Vol. 2. xii +684 pp., pls. 7-10b. Hamm. 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PHAGOCATA CORNUTA SHISHKOV, 1903 (PLATYHELMINTHES : TURBELLARIA): REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 2055 By R. Kenk (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560) 1. Phagocata cornuta was established by G. Shishkov (actually trans- literated from the Bulgarian as Chichkoff) in a paper “Paru le 15 Décembre 1903”. It was mentioned again by Shishkov in 1906 (p. 82) who stated that Mrazek’s Planaria montenigrina was a synonym of Phagocata cornuta. Bresslau (1904) and Steinmann (1908 : 682) also considered the two species to be identical. Phagocata cornuta was again mentioned briefly by Shishkoy (1925 : 114,119) and was included in a faunal list by Valkanoy (1934: 18). Valkanov’s paper (1934 : 27) also lists Planaria montenegrina as an apparently different species. A later publication by Valkanov (1938) mentions only Planaria montenegrina. Only the two papers by Shishkov (1903 and 1906) contain original contributions, the remaining papers are listings or statements regarding synonymy. 2. Planaria montenigrina was described as a new species by A. Mrazek in a paper presented at a society meeting on 12 June 1903. The volume containing the society proceedings for 1903 is dated 1904, but individual papers (each with independent paging) may have been issued beforehand, a fact which is now difficult to ascertain (Mrazek himself quotes the paper as 1904). The name montenigrina (or a variant spelling montenegrina) in various combinations (Planaria m., Planaria alpina m., Grenobia alpina m.) has been used in over 70 publications, some of which deal with morphological, physiological, ecological, or biogeographical relations of the taxon. The most outstanding papers are the following: Mrazek (1907), Stankovic (1924, 1934, 1960), Stankovié & Komarek (1927), Meixner (1928), de Beauchamp (1932), Codreanu (1956), Stella (1957), and Gourbault (1972). 3. In view of the foregoing situation, I hereby request the International Commission :— (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy, the name cornuta Shishkoy, 1903, as published in the binomen Phagocata cornuta; (2) to place the name montenigrina Mrazek, 1904, as published in the binomen Planaria montenigrina, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the name cornuta Shishkov, 1903, suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED BEAUCHAMP, P. DE. 1932. Turbellariés, hirudinées, brachiobdellidés, deuxiéme série. Archs. Zool. exp. gén. 73 : 113-380, pl. 6-8 BressLAu, E. 1904. [Abstracts of G. Chichkoff and A. Mrazek]. Zool. Zentbl. 11 : 368-369 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 CuicHKorFr, G. 1903. See SHisHKov, G., 1903 CopREANU, R. 1956. La dispersion d’une planaire polypharyngée (Crenobia alpina montenigrina Mrazek, 1903) dans les Carpathes meridionales. Anal. Inst. Cerc. pisc. 1 : 385-399 GourBAULT, N. 1972. Recherches sur les triclades paludicoles hypogés. Mém. Mus. natn. Hist. nat. Paris (Sér. A) (Zool.) 73 : 249 pp., 3 pl. MEIXNER, J. 1928. Der Genitalapparat der Tricladen und seine Beziehungen zu ihrer allgemeinen Morphologie, Phylogenie, Okologie und Verbreitung. Z. Morph. Okol. Tiere 11 : 570-612 MrAzek, A. 1904. Uber eine neue polypharyngeale Planarienart aus Montenegro (PI. palanernn n.sp.). Sber. k. bohm. Ges. Wiss. Math.- nat. Kl. 1903 (33) : 24 p., 4 pl. — 1907. Eine zweite polypharyngeale Planarienform aus Montenegro. Sber. K. Bohm. Ges. Wiss. Math.-nat. Kl. 1906 (32) : 18 p., 1 pl. SHISHKOV, G. 1903. (Chickhoff, G.) Sur une nouvelle espéce du genre Phagocata Leidy. Archs. Zool. exp. gén. (Série 4) 1 : 401-409, pl. 16 — 1906. Notes on freshwater triclads found up to now in Bulgaria). God. sof. Univ. 2 : 68-82 — 1925. (Sur quelques espéces de triclades d’eau douce de la Bulgarie). God. sof. Univ. 20 : 113-120, pl. 2 Stankovic, S. 1924. (Sur la distribution géographique et la biologie des planaires des sources et des ruisseaux en Serbie). Glas srp. kralj. Akad. 113 : 41-88, 1 pl. — 1934. Uber die Verbreitung und Okologie der Quellentricladen auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Zoogeografica, 2 : 147-203, pl. 1-3 — 1960. The Balkan lake Ohrid and its living world. Monographiae biol. 9 : 357 pp. STANKOVIC, S., and KoMAREK, J. 1927. Die Siisswasser-Tricladen des Westbalkans und die zoogeographischen Probleme dieser Gegend. Zool. Jb. (Abteilung fiir Systematik Okologie und Geographie der Tiere) 53 : 591-674, pl. 7-9 STEINMANN, P. 1908. Die polypharyngealen Planarienformen und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Deszendenztheorie, Zoogeographie und Biologie. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 1 : 679-690 STetta, E. 1957. Prime osservazioni su una planaria polifaringea rinvenuta nella sorgente Peschiera. Boll. Zool. 24 : 227-234 VALKANOV, A. 1934. Beitrag zur Hydrofauna Bulgariens. 32 p., 1 map. Sofiia — 1938. Hydrobiologische Untersuchungen an einigen Hochgebirgsseen Bul- gariens. God. sof. Univ. 34 (3) : 101-145 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OBSERVATIONS ON LEMCHE’S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF EUDYPTES SCLATERI BULLER, 1888 AND EUDYPTES ROBUSTUS OLIVER, 1953. Z.N.(S.) 1893 (See vol. 28: 92-93; vol. 29: 43) By George Watson (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institu- tion, Washington, D.C. 20560, USA) I agree with Henning Lemche’s modification (Bull. 29: 43) of my proposal concerning the preservation of Eudyptes sclateri Buller, 1888 and Eudyptes robustus Oliver, 1953 (vol. 28: 92-93) and in particular the suppression of Eudyptes atratus Finsch, 1875. The loss of the type of atratus and the other- wise peculiar characters shown in the extant plate of the type, in Buller (1888 History of Birds of New Zealand, vol. 2, plate opp., p. 294), as pointed out by Oliver (1953, Emu 53: 185-187), make it undesirable to retain the availability of atratus even provisionally. Incidently the name Eudyptes atratus was originally attributed to Hutton by Finsch (1875, Jbis: 114) who published Hutton’s manuscript name. It also appears attributed to Hutton by Buller (loc. cit.), by Falla (1935, Rec. Auckland Inst. Mus. 1: 322-325), and by Oliver (1953; 1955 New Zealand Birds, 2nd Edition: 75-78) but the attribution is changed to Finsch in the Checklist of New Zealand Birds (Fleming 1953: 15). The citation of authorship in such cases, at least under Article 11d of the Rules, is still in question (Sabrosky, Bull. 30: 95-96). I therefore urge the Commission to adopt the proposals as modified by Lemche. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Honorary Life President The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) B. The Members of the Trust The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C., C.H. Mon. M. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. (Secretary and Managing Director) Dr. N. E. Hickin Dr. L. B. Holthuis Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Mr. R. V. Melville Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright, C.B. Dr. G. F. de Witte C. The Officers of the Trust Margaret Green, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Opinions Opinion 1014 (Okenia Menke, 1830) Opinion 1015 (Solenius Lepeletier & Brullé, 1834) Opinion 1016 (Cribrilina punctata Hassall, 1841) .. Opinion 1017 (Trychosis Foerster, 1868) Opinion 1018 (Polanisa Walker, 1875) New Cases Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1810 (Pisces, Carangidae): request for suppres- sion under the plenary powers (E. Tortonese) . . , a crs Resubmission of Pan Oken, 1816 and Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia) proposed conservation under the plenary powers (G. B. Corbet, J. E. Hill, J. M. Ingles and P. H. Napier) bis ae : Application for the suppression of Delphinus pernettensis de Blainville, 1827 and Delphinus pernettyi Desmarest, 1820 (P. J. H. van Bree) Sesarma trapezium Dana, 1852 (Crustacea: Decapoda): proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Lawrence Abele) - CONTENTS (. (continued from inside back wrapper) Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1892 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): requ suppression under the plenary powers (Gilbert Voss). . ee: Oo 1 Ke Cyclogyra Wood, 1842 (Foraminiferida): proposal for uae under the plenary powers (Richard W. Ponder) PLATYSTOMATIDAE Schiner, 1862: proposed conservation as a family- group name over ACHIIDAE Fleming, 1821 Sonikes PES) (George C. Steyskal & David K. McAlpine) Phagocata cornuta Shishkov, 1903 (Platyhelminthes: Turbellaria): request for the suppression under the plenary powers (R. Kenk) Comments Previously unpublished comments on the use of the plenary powers to stabilise the names of the North European species belonging to the Tipula oleracea-group within the genus Tipula Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (C. P. Alexander, A. M. Hemmingsen & H. Lemche, P. Brinck, H. Lemche, B. ere A. M. Hutson & R. I. Vane-Wright) ; : # Comment on the proposed suppression of the name Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895 (Pisces, Galaxiidae) (H. Lemche) Addition to the application concerning the suppression of Diomedea leptorhyncha Coues, 1866 (George Watson) Comment on the proposed suppression of Paraonis Grube, 1872 in favour of Paraonis Cerruti, 1909 under the plenary powers (P. Uschakov & V. Strelkov) ‘ Be Ar : oe oft af Comment and request for a Declaration on proposal for an amendment to Article 33a of the International Code (Eugene Eisenmann) Comment on the problem of the type-species of the genus Lucina (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) (H. Lemche) . . Comment on the request for the designation of a type-species of Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (H. A. Rehder) #3 if AS Observations on Lemche’s comment on the proposed preservation of Eudyptes sclateri Buller, 1888 and raga robustus Oliver, 1953 (George Watson) : re aE © 1974. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshire Page 51 54 59 62 64 16 AUGIO74 = P¥Ac i) “FASE . Volume 31, Part 2 pp. 65-102 14th August, 1974 a ¥ wees THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS Page Report of Special Session held at Ustaoset, Norway, September, 1973. . 66 Appendix A: The status of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature .. bi ei Se Ss a3 ae as a 71 Appendice A: Le statut de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoolo- gique .. = =e BA BA 2 ie or Bis 70 (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 (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD 1974 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. W. D. L. Ripe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Vice-President: Dr. L. B. HottHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Secretary: Mr. R. V. MELVILLE (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, 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 Dr. Henning LEMcHE (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). Opisthobranchia; Phylogeny Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960). Echinoidea, Asteroidea Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography Professor E. BINDER (Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962). Mollusca Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mollusca Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithology; Evolution Prof. Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. W. D. L. Ripe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) (President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SABRosky (U.S. 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 EISENMANN (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.) (30 January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology Dr. Y. I. StaROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea Professor F. M. BAYER (Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972). Octocorallia; Systematics Dr. John O. Coruiss (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972). Protozoa; Systematics Prof. Dr. H. K. ErBEN (Institut fiir Paldontologie, Universitat Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology Professor T. HABE (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972). Marine Biology Mr. David HEppeLt (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH 1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972). Mollusca Dr. I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW75 BD) (20 February 1972). Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Instituto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. B. B. ROHDENDORE (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) (21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology Prof. G. BERNARDI (Museum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). Lepidoptera Dr. C. Duprus (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). Diptera Dr. T. Jaczewski (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (re-instated 5 November 1973). Hemiptera BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 31, Part 2 (pp. 65-102) 14th August 1974 INTRODUCTORY NOTE In Volume 30, Double Part 3/4, page 130 of this Bulletin, it was announced that the Commission had decided to set aside a special number of the Bulletin for the report of the Special Meeting of the Commission held on the occasion of the XVIII General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences at Ustaoset, Norway, and for the English and French texts of the amendments to the Code adopted by the XVII International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1972. This special number was also to contain the French and English texts of the Constitution of the Commission. This is that special number of the Bulletin. The report of the Special Meeting of the Commission includes under Appendix A the essential documents concerning the decisions taken by the General Assembly of I.U.B.S. affecting the status of the Commission, namely: Appendix A, para 8. Two resolutions on the status of the Commission. Annex A.1. Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. Annex A.2. Revised Statutes of the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. The texts of the amendments to the Code and of the Constitution of the Commission follow after the report and are prefaced by a separate note. 1 6 SUG ae rs, PURCHA E ney Cr, ks ~ Cay ues 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Report of Special Session held at Ustaoset, Norway, September 1973 (Z.N.(G.) 166) By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature AGENDA A. Special Business: 1. Mode of operation of the Commission while operating under I.U.B.S. through the delegated authority of the International Congress of Zoology. 2. Structure and form of Section on Nomenclature. 3. Joint discussions with I.U.B.S. to obtain agreement on the mode of operation of the Commission under I.U.B.S. 4. Preparation of a report by the Commission on mode of operation under I.U.B.S. for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. B. General Business: 1. Report of matters arising out of the Boulder Congress. 2. Committee to prepare revised draft of 3rd Edition of Code and Con- stitution—discussion of terms of reference and nature of revision. 3. Discussion of motions for amendments to the Code deferred from the Monaco Congress. (Bull. 29, pts 2 and 4.) 4. Discussion of the role of ad hoc committees and advisers to assist with cases under consideration. 5. Elections between congresses—discussion re voting paper currently before the Commission for a vote on the election of a member of the Commis- sion, 1. The following members attended the Special Session: Ride (President), Holthuis (Vice-President), Sabrosky (Member of Council), Bayer, Bernardi, Binder, Corliss, Dupuis, Habe, Lemche, Nye and the Secretary. 2. Apologies for absence were received from Brinck, Mayr, Rohdendorf, Tortonese and Willink. 3. Aclosed meeting of the Commission was held on 28 and 29 September. The President (Dr. Ride) welcomed new members of the Commission and explained the status of the Session as a Special Session of the Commission (Constitution, Article 11 (b)). The Agenda, as given above, had been prepared by the President, agreed by the Council, and distributed to all members of the Commission by the Secretary on 23 August 1973. 4. The President went on to explain that the Session could discuss matters not on the agenda, provided that no conclusions were recorded. He proposed that two such matters be admitted for discussion: (a) guidance to the Secretary in answering an enquiry on a particular case; (b) new proposals from the floor of any open meeting for discussions on the Code held by the Commission during the Session. The President’s proposals were accepted. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 5. The subjects listed under Agenda Section A, Special Business were then presented by the President, as follows: A(1) The President explained that the Commission had no status within the International Union of Biological Sciences (I.U.B.S.); it existed by virtue only of the relevant provisions in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the Constitution of the Commission. I.U.B.S. as such exerted no authority over the Commission. A(2) The Council of the Commission, represented by the quorum of three members present at Ustaoset, had resolved to ask the General Assembly of I.U.B.S. (then being held at Ustaoset) to delegate to its own Division of Zoology the authority delegated to the Union by the XVII International Congress of Zoology (Monaco, 1972). A(3) The Division of Zoology had agreed to set up a Section on Zoological Nomenclature. The statutes of this Section were being prepared by a committee which included members of the Council and the Secretary of the Commission, for approval by the Division on the following day. The President explained that the Statutes of the Division of Zoology were being amended to provide that the President (or his interim replacement during a General Assembly) and the Secretary of the Commission should be members of the Board of the Division. A(4) A subcommittee composed of Monsieur Bernardi, Dr. Corliss and the Secretary was appointed to prepare a report on the preceding items, in English and in French, for publication in the Bulletin. Their report forms Appendix A to this document. 6. The meeting agreed to discuss the subjects included in Section B, General Business, in the order (5), (1), (2), (4). Item B(3) would be deferred for discussion in an open meeting on 30 September, when other zoologists present at the General Assembly could take part. B(5) The President explained that, by an administrative oversight, Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski had not been nominated for re-election at the Monaco Congress. Under a Strict interpretation of the Constitu- tion, no action could be taken to fill the place thus left vacant until the next Congress. There was, however, evidence that Polish zoologists were concerned at the situation and that the good name of the Commission in Poland was in danger. He therefore proposed: (i) that the Special Session recommend to the Commission (through a one-month vote) that Dr. Jaczewski be reinstated as though he had been re-elected at Monaco, on the grounds that the present Constitution makes no provision for the correcting of administrative errors; (ii) that a proposal to amend the Constitution accordingly be submitted to the next Congress; (iii) that on Dr. Jaczewski’s retirement under the age-limit in February 1974, the vacancy be filled under the provisions of 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the Constitution, and that Polish nominees would be among those considered for election. The President’s proposals were accepted. B(1) The Secretary’s report on the First International Congress of Sys- tematic and Evolutionary Biology held at Boulder, Colorado, in August 1973, which had already been circulated to all members of the Commission, was presented. Discussion centred on the pro- posal that had been put forward there by Professor Brinck for wider and easier dissemination of news about the Commission and its activities. The following steps were agreed upon: (i) to approach the editors of Systematic Zoology with a request for space to publish news about the Commission, including announcements of new cases with cross-references to the Bulletin; the attention of readers would particularly be drawn to discussions of wider issues in the Bulletin; (ii) if the above request was granted, to send a notice for publica- tion in various journals that news of the Commission’s activities would be found in Systematic Zoology; (iii) to send announcements of the publication of Opinions to the same journals to which notices of the possible use of the plenary powers in the same cases had been sent. B(2) The President explained that he had appointed an Editorial Committee to prepare the Third Edition of the Code, consisting of the following: himself and Dr. Key; Dr. Sabrosky and Dr. Corliss; M. Bernardi and M. Forest; the Secretary and Mr. C. W. Wright. The first- named in each pair would be responsible for conducting the corres- pondence of the pair and would keep his partner in constant touch with the work of the committee. After discussion, the following steps were agreed: (i) to publish as soon as possible, as a special number of the Bulletin, the amendments to the Code adopted at Monaco (including the questions deferred from the Washington (1963) Congress) and the amended Constitution, all in both English and French; (ii) to prepare a third edition of the Code for approval by the next Congress (i.e. the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. at the General Assembly in 1976) to incorporate (a) amendments deferred from the Monaco Congress, already published in Vol. 29 of the Bulletin; (b) amendments proposed from the floor of the open meeting to be held at Ustaoset and accepted by the Special Session; (c) proposals by members of the Commission for the removal of ambiguities or points of doubtful interpretation, and for examples to illustrate existing and new clauses in the Code, if sent to the Secretary before 31 December 1973; (d) to appoint Professor Holthuis (Chairman), M. Dupuis and Dr. Nye as a Working Party to revise the Glossary and Index to the Code {with authority to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 ask the President to appoint a separate Working Party on the Index if necessary). B(4) There was discussion of the need for specialist committees to examine cases on which no comments had been received, or where there was reason to think that the information provided was incomplete. It was pointed out that the Secretary’s task was to ensure that applica- tions put to the Commission were internally consistent and that the proposals for action by the Commission were clear and intelligible. He was invited to distribute examples of what he considered well- drafted applications. Each member of the Commission would be asked to tell the Secretary of the fields within which he (the member) could find trustworthy sources of advice. Members would be further asked to read each number of the Bulletin on receipt, to consult their advisers as they thought fit, and to send any remarks to the Secretary before the close of the period for comments. B(3) Proposals for amendments to the Code published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29, pts 2 and 4 which had been deferred from the Monaco (1972) International Congress of Zoology were considered at an open meeting of the Commission held on 30 September and attended by other interested zoologists present at the General Assembly of I.U.B.S. There was also informal discussion of matters raised on the floor of the meeting. The result was a series of proposals accepted by the Special Meeting of the Commission (which had, of course, no authority to adopt them as amendments to the Code) and referred to an Editorial Committee to be set up by the President of the Commission with the task of preparing a Third Edition of the Code. The necessary draft amendments accepted by the Special Meeting, with other proposals already before the Commission, will be published in the Bulletin before being presented to the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. at the 1976 General Assembly for ratification. 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature APPENDICE A Le Statut de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique 1. Cette section du rapport donne un compte rendu des décisions touchant le statut de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique prises lors de la XVIIIe Assemblée Générale de l'Union Internationale des Sciences Biologiques 4 Ustaoset, Norvége, 1973. 2. Le statut de la Commission est défini par le Code International de Nomenclature Zoologique et par la Constitution de la Commission. Le XVIle Congrés International de Zoologie (Monaco, 1972) a invité ’U.I.S.B. 4 accepter lautorité qui avait été jusqu’alors exercée par les Congres sur la Commission et sur le Code. 3. L’Assemblée Générale de 1’U.I.S.B., tout en acceptant l’invitation du Congrés de Monaco, a reconnu que deux étapes devaient étre franchies avant qu’une séance pléniére d’un Congrés International de Zoologie pit donner une approbation formelle 4 toute décision en matiére de nomenclature zoologique: premiérement une proposition devait étre considérée par la Commission; deuxiémement cette proposition devait étre présentée par la Commission au Congrés par l’intermédiaire de la Section de Nomenclature du Congrés. L’As- semblée Générale a donc cherché un moyen de fournir des mécanismes corres- pondant a la séance pléniére d’un Congrés et 4 la Section de Nomenclature du Congrés. 4. Le premier de ces mécanismes a été fourni par la décision de l Assemblée Générale, agissant en vertu des dispositions de l’Article 76(c)(i) du Code, de déléguer 4 sa Division de Zoologie l’autorité quelle avait regue du Congrés. Le deuxiéme mécanisme a été fourni par la décision de la Division de Zoologie de !’U.1.S.B. de constituer une Section de Nomenclature qui fonctionnera pendant les réunions de chaque Assemblée Générale de l'Union, reconnaissant cette Section comme une partie permanente de la structure de la Division. 5. Les statuts de la Section de Nomenclature Zoologique (en tant que Section de la Division de Zoologie de l’U.I.S.B.) sont présentés dans l’Annexe A.l Ace rapport. Ces derniers ont été préparés par un comité de rédaction qui comprenait trois membres du Conseil et le Secrétaire de la Commission. En méme temps les statuts de la Division ont été revisés en ce sens qu ils stipulent que le Président et le Secrétaire de la Commission seront membres du Bureau de la Division. Sile Président est empéché d’assister 4 une Assemblée Générale de ’U.1.S.B., sa place au Bureau pendant la durée de cette Assemblée peut étre tenue par le Vice-Président ou par un membre du Conseil de la Com- mission d’aprés les dispositions de l’Article IIB des Statuts de la Commission. 6. Lreffet de ces décisions est que la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique a un statut indépendant sous l’égide de 1’U.1.S.B. Les décisions concernant le Code et la Constitution seront prises seulement par des zoologistes, quelle que soit la division de l'Union a laquelle ils sont affiliés. 7. La Commission s’est accordé 4 reconnaitre 4 l’unanimité qu’il est désirable de favoriser les contacts avec les zoologistes par tous les moyens possibles et particuliérement par la présence de ses membres aux Congrés ressortissant du domaine général de la Zoologie, ou ils pourraient agir en tant Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 APPENDIX A The Status of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1. This section of the report gives an account of the decisions affecting the status of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature taken at the XVIII General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences at Ustaoset, Norway, 1973. 2. The status of the Commission is defined by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and by the Constitution of the Commission. The XVII International Congress of Zoology (Monaco, 1972) invited I.U.B.S. to accept the authority over the Commission and the Code which had until then been exercised by the Congresses. 3. The General Assembly of I.U.B.S., while accepting the invitation of the Monaco Congress, recognized that two preparatory stages had to be completed before a plenary session of an International Congress of Zoology could give its formal approval to any decision in matters of zoological nomenclature: first, a proposition had to be considered by the Commission; secondly, that pro- position had to be presented to the Congress by the Commission through the Section on Nomenclature of the Congress. The I.U.B.S. therefore sought for a means of providing mechanisms corresponding to the plenary session of a Congress and the Section on Nomenclature of a Congress. 4. The first of these mechanisms was provided by the decision of the General Assembly, under the provisions of Article 76(c)(i) of the Code, to delegate the authority that it had received from the Congress to its Division of Zoology. The second mechanism was provided by the decision of the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. to set up, to function during the meetings of each General Assembly of the Union, a Section on Zoological Nomenclature, recognising this Section as a permanent part of the structure of the Division. 5. The statutes of the Section on Zoological Nomenclature (as a Section of the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S.) form Annex A.1 to this report. The latter were prepared by a drafting committee which included three members of the Council and the Secretary of the Commission. At the same time, the statutes of the Division of Zoology (Annex A.2) were revised so as to provide that the President and Secretary of the Commission should be members of the Board of the Division. If the President of the Commission is unable to attend a General Assembly of I.U.B.S., his place on the Board for the duration of that Assembly may be taken by the Vice-President or by a member of the Council of the Commission under Article IIB of the By-Laws of the Commission. 6. The effect of these decisions is that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has independent status under the aegis of I.U.B.S. Decisions concerning the Code and the Constitution and membership of the Commission will be taken only by zoologists, to whichever division of the Union they are affiliated. 7. The Commission agreed unanimously on the desirability of promoting contacts with zoologists by all possible means, and especially through the attendance of members at congresses in the general field of zoology where they could act as rapporteurs for the Commission. It also agreed to send items of 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature que rapporteurs de la Commission. Elle est aussi d’accord d’envoyer des éléments d’information sur la Commission, sur les cas en instance et sur les décisions prises, pour publication dans d’autres revues largement diffusées parmi les zoologistes, aussi bien que dans le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 8. Le texte des deux résolutions adoptées par la X VIIIe Assemblée Générale suit: (1) La XVIIIe Assemblée Générale de l'Union Internationale des Sciences Biologiques: Prenant acte de la résolution du XVIIe Congrés International de Zoologie invitant l’Union Internationale des Sciences Biologiques a accepter l’autorité sur la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique et sur le Code Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique qui avait été exercée auparavant par les Congrés Internationaux de Zoologie; Décide que l'Union Internationale des Sciences Biologiques accepte cette autorité et la délégue a la Division de Zoologie de l'Union Internationale des Sciences Biologiques. (2) Vu le caractére essentiel du travail de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique (C.I.N.Z.) et interruption, voire la termi- naison probable de l’organisme qui était anciennement son parent, les Congrés Internationaux de Zoologie, le comité des admissions et de la structure recommande I’établissement d’une Section de Nomen- clature Zoologique a l’intérieur de la Division de Zoologie. Le comité ad hoc voudrait exprimer son approbation du Comité Exécutif pour avoir pris les dispositions nécessaires au transfert de la C.I.N.Z. et plus particuliérement exprime ses compliments aux MM. Farner, Melville, Baer et Ride pour le travail soigneux qu’ils ont fait dans ce contexte. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 news about the Commission, and about cases pending and rulings adopted for publication in other journals of wide distribution among zoologists, as well as to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 8. The text of the two resolutions adopted by the X VIIIth General Assembly follows: (1) The General Assembly, noting the resolution of the XVIIth International Congress of Zoology inviting the International Union of Biological Sciences to accept authority over the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; Resolves that I.U.B.S. accept this authority and delegate it to the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. (2) In view of the essential nature of the work of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature (I.C.Z.N.) and the interruption and probable termination of its former parent body, the International Congresses of Zoology, the committee on Admissions and Structure recommends the establishment of a Section on Zoological Nomen- clature in the Division of Zoology. The ad hoc committee wishes to commend the Executive Committee of I.U.B.S. for making the neces- sary arrangements for the transfer of I.C.Z.N. and further especially compliments Drs. Farner, Melville, Baer and Ride on their careful work in this connection. 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANNEX A.1 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DIVISION OF ZOOLOGY Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature Article 1—The Section constitutes the Section of Nomenclature as specified in Article 3 of the Statutes of the Division of Zoology. Article 2—At each General Assembly of I.U.B.S. the Section of Nomen- clature of the Division of Zoology shall carry out the functions and duties of the Section of Nomenclature set out in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and in the Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. In particular the Section shall receive and discuss proposals from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and shall submit recommendations concerning them to the Division of Zoology of [.U.B.S. Article 3—The members of the Section are: (a) Members of the Board of the Division of Zoology; (b) Members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature present at the General Assembly; (c) Any zoologists present at the General Assembly being members of national or other delegations, divisions, sections or commissions of the Union; (d) Any zoologists appointed by the Board of the Division of Zoology for that purpose. Article 4—The Section may meet only between the opening of a General Assembly and the closing of that Assembly. Article 5—There is no limit to the number of General Assemblies at which an individual may serve as a member of the Section. Article 6—The Chairman of the Section shall be elected by the Section at its first meeting at any General Assembly. Article 7—In elections to the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature no one shall vote to fill a vacancy for which his own name is proposed. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 ANNEX A.2 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DIVISION OF ZOOLOGY Revised Statutes of the Division of Zoology 1. Objects and composition of the Division Article 1—The Division constitutes the Division of Zoology (Animal Biology) as recognized under Article 3 of Statutes of the International Union of Biological Sciences (I.U.B.S.). Article 2—The objects of the Division are: (a) to promote the study of Zoological Sciences; (b) to initiate, facilitate and coordinate zoological research and other scientific activities involving zoological sciences in which international cooperation is expedient; (c) to ensure the discussion and dissemination of the results of cooperative research; (d) to promote the organisation of international conferences and to assist the publication of their reports; (e) to ensure through a section of General Zoology the continuation and organisation of International Congresses. Article 3—The Division comprises a number of Sections, Commissions and Committees set up in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Statutes of I.U.B.S. A section is concerned with a particular discipline in the Zoological Sciences. A Commission is a body charged with the study or execution of specified tasks. A Committee is a temporary organisation to study special problems. Article 4—In addition to other Sections, the Division maintains a Section of General Zoology not based on any single international organisation. Article 5—Any recognized international Association in a zoological disci- pline may obtain the status of Section by complying with Art. 8 of the Statutes of [.U.B.S. Article 6—International organisations promoting zoological objectives and not recognized as Sections may be admitted as commissions or committees on proposal of the Board of the Division to the General Assembly of I.U.B.S. 2. Board of the Division Article 7—The General Assembly of J.U.B.S. elects the Board of the Divi- sion. The task of the Board is to conduct the affairs of the Division. Article 8—The Board consists of: (a) at least two representatives of the Section of General Zoology; (b) the President and the Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. At any meeting of the Board held during a General Assembly at which the President is not present, he shall be represented by the Vice-President or by the member of the Commission presiding over the meetings of the Commission in his place; (c) at least one representative of each other section; 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (d) the zoologists who are members of the Executive Committee of I.U.B.S.; (e) a Chairman; (f) a Vice-Chairman; (g) a Secretary. The members sub a, c, e, f and g are elected for a period of three years by the General Assembly of I.U.B.S. and are re-eligible for further periods. It is however desirable to ensure as wide an international representation as possible through a reasonable amount of change of personnel. The members sub c are proposed by the International Associations concerned. The members sub d are elected in accordance with Article 10(c) of the Statutes of I.U.B.S. Vacancies arising between General Assemblies may be filled by the Board, subject to confirmation by the following General Assembly. 3. Sections Article 9—The affairs of each Section are managed by a board. The Board of the Section of General Zoology is elected by the Section itself, that of the other Sections by the international associations concerned. 4. Finances Article 10—The income of the Division is derived from grants made by or through I.U.B.S. 5. General Provisions Article 11—These statutes become valid by the sanction of the General Assembly of I.U.B.S. Amendments will also need the sanction of that Assembly. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77 AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ADOPTED SINCE THE XVI INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, WASHINGTON, 1963 The amendments to the Code adopted since the XVI International Congress of Zoology, Washington, 1963, consist of Declaration 42, amending Article 26 and published in 1966 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 198-200 (reported to the Monaco Congress, Bull. 29 : 72-3; ratified by that Congress, ibid.: 180); and of a series of amendments discussed at and adopted by the Monaco (1972) Congress (ibid.: 180-189). These amendments are presented here exactly as adopted. An amendment that bears the same indexing as an existing provision of the Code simply replaces that provision in toto (e.g. Article 11(b)). Others (e.g. Article 11(b)(ii) are additions to the existing text and are provided with sufficient indexing to indicate where they should be placed in the Code. Deletions of existing provi- sions are indicated separately. The existing numbering of Articles and Sections has been retained intact. CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION The Constitution of the Commission adopted by the Washington (1963) Congress was published in Bull. 21 : 181-185, 1964. It is here printed in full, not only because the amendments to it are necessarily extensive, but also because it has been re-arranged to correspond in lay-out with the Code, to which it forms an Appendix. 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PREAMBULE (premier alinéa) Le Code International de Nomenclature Zoologique est le systeme de régles et de recommandations adoptées par les Congrés Internationaux de Zoologie et appliqueés par la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique. Article 11. Conditions générales requises (b) Langue.—Le nom doit étre latin ou latinisé ou traité comme tel, ou, sil s’agit d’une combinaison arbitraire de lettres, formé de fagon a pouvoir étre traité comme un mot latin [VII]. (i) Les lettres ‘‘j’”, “k’’, “w’” et “‘y” peuvent étre employées dans les noms zoologiques. (ii) Un mot grec ou d’origine non classique (y compris une combinaison arbitraire de lettres) est considéré comme latinisé aux fins de la nomenclature zoologique s’il est écrit en lettres latines, méme si la terminaison n’est pas latinisée. Exemples.—Toxostoma et brachyrhynchos du grec; Pfrille de V'allemand; Abudefduf de l’arabe; boobook et quoll de Vaustralien aborigéne; Gythemon, une combinaison arbitraire de lettres. (e) Noms du groupe-famille.— (ii) Un nom du groupe-famille dont le suffixe est incorrect est utilisable avec sa date et son auteur originaux mais avec un suffixe correctement formé [Art. 29]. (f) Noms du groupe-genre.—Un nom du groupe-genre doit étre un sub- stantif au nominatif singulier ou étre traité comme tel: (i) Les noms de groupes collectifs sont traités comme des noms généri- ques au sens du présent Code [Art. 42(c)]; (ii) Un nom uninominal proposé pour une subdivision primaire d’un genre, méme si cette subdivision est désignée par un terme tel que “section” ou “division’”’, est considéré comme un nom subgénérique et est utilisable en nomenclature s’il satisfait aux dispositons appro- priées de ce Chapitre [Art. 42(d)]. Article 13. Noms publiés aprés 1930.— (c) Exclusions.—Aprés 1930 un nom proposé seulement par “indication” suivant l'une des méthodes énumérées dans l’Article 16(a), clauses (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) et (viii) n’est pas utilisable. Article 17. Conditions qui ne rendent pas un nom inutilisable.— [ajouter a la fin de la clause (2)]. ... [pour application au cas des hybrides, voir Art. 24(c)]; ou Article 23. Loi de Priorité.— [Remplacer les sections (a) et (b) par]. (a-b) But.—La Loi de Priorité doit étre employée pour promouvoir la stab- ilité. Elle n’est pas destinée 4 contrarier usage, dans sa signification habituelle, d’un nom établi depuis longtemps par V’introduction d’un Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 PREAMBLE (first paragraph) The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is the system of rules and recommendations adopted by the International Congresses of Zoology and administered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Article 11. General requirements.— (b) Language.—The name must be either Latin or latinized, or treated as such, or, if an arbitrary combination of letters, must be so constructed that it can be treated as a Latin word [VII]. (i) The letters ‘*j”’, “*k’’, “w’ and “‘y”’ may be used in zoological names. (ii) A word of Greek or of non-classical origin (including an arbitrary combination of letters) is treated as latinized for the purposes of zoological nomenclature if it is written in Latin letters, even if the ending is not latinized. Example.—Toxostoma and brachyrhynchos from the Greek; Pfrille from the German; Abudefduf from the Arabic; boobook and quoll from the aboriginal Aus- tralian; Gythemon, an arbitrary combination of letters. (e) Names of the family-group.— (ii) A family-group name of which the suffix is incorrect is available with its original date and authorship, but with a correctly formed suffix [Art. 29]. (f) Names of the genus-group.—A genus-group name must be a noun in the nominative singular or be treated as such. (i) Names for collective groups are treated as generic names in the meaning of the Code [Art. 42(c)]. (ii) A uninominal name proposed for a primary subdivision of a genus, even if the subdivision is designated by a term such as “section” or “division’”’, is considered to be a subgeneric name and is available in nomenclature if it satisfies the relevant provisions of this Chapter [Art. 42(d)]. Article 13. Names published after 1930.— (c) Exclusions.—After 1930, a name proposed only by “indication” under any of the methods listed in Article 16(a), clauses (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) is not available. Article 17. Conditions that do not prevent availability.— [Add to end of clause (2)]. . .. [for application in the case of hybrids see Art. 24(c)]; or Article 23. Law of Priority.— [Replace sections (a) and (b) by]. (a-b) Purpose.—The Law of Priority is to be used to promote stability and is not intended to be used to upset a long-established name in its accus- tomed meaning through the introduction of an unused name which is 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature nom inutilisé qui est son synonyme plus ancien. Un zoologiste qui considére que l’application de la Loi de Priorité troublerait, a son avis, la stabilité ou l’universalité, ou serait une cause de confusion, doit maintenir l’usage existant et soumettre le cas 4 la Commission en vue @une décision par l’exercice des pleins pouvoirs [Art. 79]. Article 24. Interprétation du nom le plus ancien.— (c) Noms du groupe-espéce fondés sur des hybrides.—Un nom du groupe- espéce qui est reconnu comme ayant été fondé sur un hybride [Art. 17(2)] ne doit étre appliqué ni a l’une ni a l’autre des espéces parentes. Article 26. Noms composés.— (d) Abbréviations dans les noms composés.—Un mot abrégé formant une partie d’un nom composé doit étre écrit en toutes lettres et uni au reste du nom. Exemples.—sanctijohannis et sanctaecatharinae, non s. johannis, st. johannis, sti johannis ou toute variante avec trait d’union telle que s.-johannis. Article 29. Formation des noms du groupe-famille.— (d) Radical incorrectement formé.—Un nom du groupe-famille proposé avant 1961 et fondé sur un radical incorrectement formé ne doit pas étre amendé pour cette raison s’il est en usage général. Les noms incorrectement formés proposés aprés 1960 doivent étre corrigés ot quils se trouvent. Article 30. Accord en genre grammatical.—Un nom du groupe-espéce, si c’est un adjectif au nominatif singulier, doit toujours étre accordé avec le nom générique avec lequel il se trouve combiné et sa désinence doit étre changée, s‘il y a lieu, lorsque l’espéce est transférée a un autre genre. (i) Lorsque l’auteur originel d’un nom du groupe-espéce n’a pas indiqué s'il considére le nom comme un substantif ou comme un adjectif et lorsque ce nom peut étre considéré comme l|’un ou comme l’autre et que la preuve de l’usage n’est pas décisive, ce nom doit étre traité comme un substantif en apposition avec le nom générique. (ii) Le genre grammatical d’un nom du groupe-genre est déterminé par les dispositions des Sections (a) et (b) de cet Article. (a) Noms du groupe-genre consistant ou finissant en un mot grec ou latin, ou finissant en un suffixe grec ou latin.— (i) (2) Un substantif de genre variable, masculin ou féminin, doit étre considéré comme masculin, 4 moins que son auteur, en publiant le nom pour la premiére fois, ne précise qu’il est féminin ou ne le traite comme tel en le combinant 4 un nom adjectif du groupe- espéce; il y a exception pour un nom du groupe-genre finissant Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81 its senior synonym. A zoologist who considers that the application of the Law of Priority would in his judgement disturb stability or universality or cause confusion is to maintain existing usage and must refer the case to the Commission for a decision under the plenary powers [Art. 79]. Article 24. Interpretation of oldest name.— (c) Species-group names founded on hybrids.—A species-group name which is found to have been based on a hybrid [Art. 17(2)] must not be applied to either of the parental species. Article 26. Compound names.— (d) Abbreviations in compounds.—An abbreviated word forming part of a compound name is to be written in full and united with the remainder of the name. Examples.—sanctijohannis and sanctaecatharinae, not s. johannis, st. johannis, sti johannis or any hyphenated variant such as s.-johannis. Article 29. Formation of family-group names.— (d) Incorrectly formed stem.—A family-group name proposed before 1961 based upon an incorrectly formed stem is not be be amended for that reason if it is in general current use. Incorrectly formed names published after 1960 are to be corrected wherever they are found. Article 30. Agreement in gender.—A species-group name, if an adjective in the nominative singular, must agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined, and its termination must be changed, if necessary, when the species is transferred to another genus. (i) Where the original author of a species-group name did not indicate whether he regarded the name as a noun or as an adjective, and where it may be regarded as either, and where the evidence of usage is not decisive, it is to be treated as a noun in apposition to _ the generic name. (ii) The gender of a genus-group name is determined by the provisions of Sections (a) and (b) of this Article. (a) Genus-group names consisting of or ending in a Greek or Latin word or ending in a Greek or Latin suffix.— (i) (2) A noun of variable gender, masculine or feminine, is to be treated as masculine, unless its author states, when he first publishes the name, that it is feminine, or so treats it in com- bination with an adjectival species-group name; except that a genus-group name ending in -ops is to be treated as masculine 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature en -ops qui doit étre traité comme masculin sans considération de sa dérivation ou de son traitement par son auteur originel. [Article 30(a)(i) et (a)(i)(2): supprimer les références a -ops des exemples.] Article 32. Orthographe originale.— (a) Orthographe originale correcte.— (ii) [si] la publication originale elle-méme, sans recours a aucune source externe d’information comporte manifestement une erreur d’inadver- tence, telle qu’un lapsus calami ou une erreur de copie ou d’impression (une transcription incorrecte, une latinisation impropre, et l’usage d’une voyelle de liaison inappropriée, ne doivent pas étre considérés comme des erreurs d’inadvertence); ou si, Article 42, Les taxa du groupe-genre.— (d) Subdivision de genres.—[Art. 11 (f)(ii)]. Article 45. Taxa du groupe-espéce. (e) Interprétation des termes ‘‘variété’’ et ‘‘forme’’.— (i) Avant 1961, on ne doit pas interpréter usage de l’un des termes “variété’’ ou “forme” comme une précision formelle du rang, soit subspécifique, soit infrasubspécifique, et leur usage doit par con- séquent étre interprété comme dénotant un rang subspécifique. Article 52. Homonymie.—Au sens du Code, l’homonymie est l’identité d’orthographe (y compris les orthographes variables énumérées dans !’Article 58) de noms utilisables désignant, dans le méme genre, des taxa du groupe- espéce différents, ou, a l’intérieur du groupe-genre ou du groupe-famille, des taxa objectivement différents. Article 59. Homonymes primaires et secondaires [Art. 57].— (b) Homonymes secondaires.—Un nom du groupe-espéce qui est un hom- onyme secondaire plus récent doit étre rejeté par tout zoologiste qui estime que les deux taxa du groupe-espéce en question appartiennent au méme genre. (i) Un homonyme secondaire plus récent rejeté avant 1961 est défini- tivement rejeté et ne peut pas étre rétabli 4 moins que l’emploi du nom de remplacement ne soit contraire 4 usage existant. Dans ce cas l’usage existant doit étre maintenu et la question doit étre déférée 4 la Commission afin qu’elle désigne comme nom valide (si nécessaire par l’usage des pleins pouvoirs [Art. 79]) celui des noms qui 4 son avis sert le mieux la stabilité et l’universalité de la nomen- clature. (ii) Si un cas d’homonymie secondaire a été ignoré ou si le nom le plus récent n’a pas été remplacé et si les taxa en question ne sont plus considérés comme appartenant au méme genre, le nom le plus récent ne doit pas étre rejeté méme si l’un des noms a été originelle- ment proposé dans le genre courant de !’autre. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 regardless of its derivation or of its treatment by its original author. [Article 30(a)(i) and 30(a)(i)(2). Delete references to -ops from the Examples. ] Article 32. Original spelling.— (a) Correct original spelling. — (ii) there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami, or a copyist’s or printer’s error (incorrect transliteration, improper latinization, and use of an inappropriate connecting vowel are not to be considered inadvertent errors); or Article 42. Taxa of the genus-group.— (d) Subdivision of genera.—[Art. 11(f)(ii)]. Article 45. Taxa of the species-group.— (e) Interpretation of the terms ‘‘variety’’ and ‘‘form’’.— (i) Before 1961, the use of either of the terms “variety” or ‘“‘form’’ is not to be interpreted as an express statement of either subspecific or infrasubspecific rank, and their use is therefore to be interpreted as denoting subspecific rank [Art. 45(d)(i)]. Article 52. Homonymy.—In the meaning of the Code, homonymy is the identity in spelling (including the variable spellings set out in Article 58) of available names denoting different species-group taxa within the same genus, or objectively different taxa within the genus-group or within the family-group. Article 59. Primary and secondary homonyms [Art. 57].— (b) Secondary homonyms.—A species-group name that is a junior secondary homonym must be rejected by any zoologist who believes that the two species-group taxa in question are congeneric. (i) A junior secondary homonym rejected before 1961 is permanently rejected and cannot be restored unless the use of the replacement name is contrary to existing usage. In that case existing usage is to be maintained and the matter is to be referred to the Commission to designate as the valid name (by use of the plenary powers if neces- sary [Art. 79]), whichever name will in its judgement best serve stability and uniformity of nomenclature. (ii) If a situation of secondary homonymy has been overlooked, or if the junior name has not been replaced [Art. 60], and the taxa in question are no longer considered congeneric, the junior name is not to be rejected, even though one name was originally proposed in the current genus of the other. 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Article 74, Lectotypes. (a) Désignation d’un spécimen.— (ii) La premiére désignation publi¢e d’un lectotype prend le pas sur toutes les restrictions précédentes de l’emploi du nom de l’espéce. Exemple.—La localité-type devient le lieu géographique de l’origine du lectotype, en dépit de toute restriction antérieure de la localité-type. Article 76. Statut de la Commission et Autorité sur la Commission.— (a) Statut de la Commission.—La Commission Internationale de Nomen- clature Zoologique est un organisme permanent qui tient tous ses pouvoirs des Congrés Internationaux de Zoologie ou de leurs successeurs en autorité. (b) Interprétation.—Les termes ‘“Congrés”, “Congrés International (ou Congrés Internationaux) de Zoologie’’, ““Section’’, “Section de Nomen- clature”’ partout ot ils apparaissent dans le présent Code et la Constitu- tion de la Commission doivent étre compris comme signifiant ces organ- ismes ou tout organisme agissant avec une autorité déléguée d’aprés les dispositions du présent Article. (c) Autorité sur la Commission.— (i) Un Congrés International de Zoologie, ou son successeur en autorité, peut déléguer tous les pouvoirs et fonctions auxquels il est fait référence dans le présent Code, y compris ce pouvoir de délégation, 4 un autre organisme international de zoologistes. (ii) Dans l’éventualité d’une telle délégation la Commission Inter- nationale de Nomenclature Zoologique doit, au moyen de négoci- ations avec l’organisme auquel a été déléguée l’autorité, prendre des dispositions pour que soit assuré l’exercice des fonctions de la Section de Nomenclature du Congrés International de Zoologie, spécifiées au Chapitre XVIII du présent Code et dans la Constitution de la Commission. (iii) Dans l’éventualité ot Vlorganisme exergant l’autorité déléguée d’aprés les dispositions du présent Article manque 4 remplir ses fonctions, la Commission peut transférer cette délégation a un autre organisme international de zoologistes. (iv) Aucune délégation ne doit avoir lieu en vertu des dispositions du présent Article sans l’approbation préalable de la Commission. (v) Toute proposition devant la Commission en vertu des dispositions du présent Article requiert l’approbation des deux tiers des votes validement émis au scrutin secret par voie postale. (d) Périodes de transition.—Au cours de toute période suivant la fin de Pauto- rité exercée par les Congrés Internationaux de Zoologie ou par un organ- ismeagissantavec une autorité déléguée d’apreés les dispositions du présent Article, la Commission doitcontinuer ses fonctions d’aprés les dispositions du Code et de la Constitution et doit en rendre compte a l’organisme qui succéde en autorité comme si cet organisme avait détenu l’autorité durant la période qui a suivi le rapport de la dite Commission au dernier Congrés International de Zoologie ou a son successeur en autorité. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 Article 74. Lectotypes.— (a) Designation of a specimen.— (ii) The first published designation of a lectotype supersedes all previous restrictions of the use of the name of the species. Example.—The type-locality becomes the geographical place of origin of the lectotype, despite any previous restriction of the type-locality. Article 76. Status of the Commission and Authority over the Commission.— (a) Status of the Commission.—The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is a permanent body which derives all its powers from the International Congresses of Zoology or their successors in authority. (b) Interpretation.—The terms ‘Congress’, “International Congress (or Congresses) of Zoology’, “Section’’, “Section on Nomenclature’, wherever they appear in this Code and the Constitution of the Com- mission are to be read as meaning those bodies or any body acting with delegated authority under this Article. (c) Authority over the Commission.— (i) An International Congress of Zoology, or its successor in authority, may delegate any of its powers and functions referred to in this Code, including this power of delegation, to another international body of zoologists. (ii) In the event of such delegation the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature shall by negotiation with the body having delegated authority over it make provisions for the carrying out of the functions of the Section on Nomenclature of the International Congress of Zoology specified in Chapter XVIII of this Code and in the Constitution of the Commission. (iii) In the event of the body exercising delegated authority under this Article failing to carry out its functions, the Commission may transfer this delegation to another international body of zoologists. (iv) No delegation shall be made under this Article without the prior approval of the Commission. (v) Any proposal before the Commission under this Article shall require approval by two thirds of the votes validly cast by post in a secret ballot. (d) Transitional Periods.—In any period following the termination of the authority exercised by the International Congresses of Zoology, or by a body acting with delegated authority under this Article, the Commission shall continue its functions under the Code and Constitution, and shall report to the body succeeding in authority as though that body had been in authority during the period subsequent to its report to the last Inter- national Congress of Zoology or its successor in authority. 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Article 77. Fonctions de la Commission.— (a) Amendements au Code.— (i) La Commission recgoit et prend en considération d’aprés les pro- cédures établies dans l’Article 16(a) de la Constitution toute pro- position qui lui est faite pour ’amendement du Code. (ii) La Commission ne doit pas faire paraitre une Déclaration sur toute proposition qui constituerait un changement majeur au Code. (iii) Lorsque la Commission détermine par les deux tiers des votes valide- ment émis qu’un amendement proposé ne constitue pas une modifi- cation majeure du Code mais en clarifie simplement une disposition, elle peut faire paraitre une Déclaration (un amendement provisoire du Code) soumise aux dispositions de 1’ Article 78. (b) Autres fonctions—La Commission doit: (i) Prendre en considération les questions de nomenclature zoologique qui ne demandent pas d’amendement du Code et formuler des Opinions et des Directions sur ces questions. (ii) Recevoir et prendre en considération toute requéte tendant a reviser une décision de la Commission. (iii) Compiler et publier les Listes Officielles des Noms et Travaux en Zoologie et les Index Officiels des Noms et Travaux rejetés et invalides en Zoologie. (iv) Présenter des rapports par publication dans le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature sur les questions concernant la nomenclature zoolo- gique et d’un intérét général pour les zoologistes, qui lui sont soumises par un Congrés International de Zoologie. (v) Soumettre des rapports aux Congrés sur ses travaux, et (vi) Assumer toutes les autres fonctions qu’un Congrés International de Zoologie peut déterminer en accord avec la Commission. Article 78. Exercice des pouvoirs.— (a) Déclarations.—Une Déclaration publiée par la Commission conformé- ment 4 l’Article 77(a)(iii) a la force d’un amendement provisoire au Code et demeure en vigueur jusqu’a ce que le prochain Congrés Inter- national de Zoologie la ratifie ou la rejette. Si la Déclaration est ratifiée, le Code est amendé en conséquence a partir de la date de la Déclaration. Ceci fait, une Déclaration est tenue pour annulée en tout point, sauf a des fins historiques. [Article 78(g) est annulé]. Article 79. Pleins Pouvoirs.— (b) Suppression des synonymes plus anciens inemployés.— Quand une requéte est adressée 4 la Commission en vue de la suppression d’un nom inutilisé, en raison de sa qualité de synonyme plus ancien d’un nom en usage courant et général, il apparait au premier abord que la stabilité est menacée s’il est montré que le nom plus ancien n’est pas connu comme ayant été utilisé pendant les 50 ans immédiatement précédents et que le nom qu'il remplacerait a été appliqué 4 un taxon Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 Article 77. Duties of the Commission.— (a) Amendments to the Code.— (i) The Commission shall receive and consider under the procedures laid down in the Constitution, Article 16(a) any proposals made to it for the amendment of the Code. (ii) The Commission shall not issue a Declaration on any proposal which would be a major change in the Code. (iii) Where the Commission determines by two thirds of the votes validly cast that a proposed amendment to the Code is not a major change but merely clarifies a provision of the Code, it may issue a Declar- ation (a provisional amendment to the Code) subject to the provisions of Article 78. (b) Other Duties.—The Commission shall: (i) Consider questions of zoological nomenclature that do not require amendment to the Code and render Opinions and Directions on them; (ii) receive and consider any application for the review of a decision by the Commission; (iii) compile and publish the Official Lists of Names and Works in Zoology and the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names and Works in Zoology; (iv) report through publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on matters concerning zoological nomenclature and of general con- cern to zoologists referred to it by an International Congress of Zoology; (v) submit reports to the Congresses on its work; and (vi) discharge such other duties as an International Congress of Zoology in consultation with the Commission may determine. Article 78. Exercise of powers.— (a) Declarations—A Declaration published by the Commission pursuant to Article 77(a)(iii) shall have the force of a provisional amendment to the Code and shall remain in force until the next succeeding International Congress of Zoology ratifies or rejects it. If the Declaration is ratified, the Code shall be deemed accordingly amended from the date of the Declaration. A Declaration is thereupon repealed for all except his- torical purposes. [Article 78(g) is deleted] Article 79. Plenary powers.— (b) Suppression of unused senior synonyms.—Where an application is made to the Commission for the suppression of a name on the grounds that it is an unused senior synonym of a name in general current use, a prima facie case that stability is threatened will be made if it can be shown that the senior name is not known to have been used during the im- mediately preceding fifty years and that the name it would replace has been applied to a particular taxon, as its presumably valid name, by at 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature particulier, en tant que nom présumé valide, par cinq auteurs différents au moins et dans 10 publications au moins, pendant la méme période. (i) L-usage d’un nom contrairement au but de la Loi de Priorité [Art. 23(a-b)], la mention d’un nom dans une synonymie ou sa simple présence dans une publication analytique, ou dans un nomenclateur ou un autre index, ou dans une liste de noms, ne seront pas acceptés comme usage au sens de (b), 4 moins que la Commission n/’ait la certitude que des circonstances spéciales justifient une telle ac- ceptation. (ii) Chaque citation d’un nom sera jugée sur sa valeur intrinseque, sans égard a la nature ou au titre du travail dans lequel le nom figure. (iii) Un nom rejeté par un zoologiste avant le ler janvier 1973, pour le motif explicite qu’il s’agissait d’un synonyme plus ancien inutilisé d’un nom en usage général courant, ne sera pas employé sauf avec lapprobation de la Commission. Pour écarter toute incertitude, une requéte devrait étre adressée a la Commission en vue de la suppression de tels noms sous les pleins pouvoirs. (iv) Le terme “‘rejeté’” relatif au (iii) ci-dessus doit étre interprété de facon stricte: le simple fait de ne pas tenir compte d’un nom ne doit pas étre interprété comme un rejet, 4 moins que les deux noms ne soient publiés d’une maniére indiquant qu’ils sont utilisables pour le méme taxon et que le nom plus récent est employé comme le nom valide. Article 80. Statut d’un cas sub judice.—Quand un cas est en cours d’examen par la Commission, l’usage existant doit étre maintenu jusqu’a ce que la décision de la Commission soit publice. (i) Un cas est considéré comme soumis a la Commission a la date de publication dans le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, par le Secrétaire de le Commission, de l’avis de réception de la requéte. (ii) Si un cas soumis 4 la Commission requiert une décision sur celui de deux noms (synonymes) a utiliser pour un taxon, les mots “usage existant” doivent étre interprétés comme désignant l’usage le plus commun. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 least five different authors and in at least 10 publications during the same period. (i) The 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 will not be accepted as usage in the sense of (a) unless the Commission is satisfied that special circumstances justify such acceptance. (ii) Each citation of a name will be considered on its own merits regard- less of the nature of the title of the work in which the name appears. (iii) A name rejected by a zoologist prior to 1 January 1973, on the explicit grounds that it was an unused senior synonym of a name in general current use, shall not be used except with the approval of the Commission. To remove uncertainty, application should be made to the Commission for the suppression of such names under the plenary powers. (iv) The term “‘rejected”’ in relation to (iii) above must be rigidly con- strued; mere disregarding of a name is not to be construed as rejection unless both names are published in a manner indicating that they are available for the same taxon and the junior name is employed as the valid name. Article 80. Status of case under consideration.— (i) A case is deemed to be under consideration by the Commission from the date of publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature of a notice of the reception of the application. (ii) Where a case under consideration by the Commission seeks a de- cision as to which of two names (synonyms) is to be used for a taxon the words “existing usage’”’ are to be taken to mean the most common usage. 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LA CONSTITUTION DE LA COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DE NOMENCLATURE ZOOLOGIQUE Article 1. Statut et Fonctions de la Commission.—Le statut, les fonctions et les pouvoirs de la Commission sont définis dans le Code International de Nomenclature Zoologique. Article 2. Composition de la Commission.— (a) Nombre.—La Commission comprend ordinairement 18 membres ou un nombre plus élevé tel que la Commission peut le fixer. Les noms et les adresses des membres en fonction sont publiés dans le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (b) Titres.—Les membres de la Commission doivent étre des personnalités scientifiques éminentes, sans considération de nationalité, qui se sont distinguées dans l’une des branches de la zoologie et qui ont manifesté un intérét pour la nomenclature zoologique. (c) Représentation des divers intéréts—Dans la mesure du possible, la composition dela Commission doit assurer une représentation équilibrée: (i) des systématiciens des principales divisions du régne animal; (ii) des zoologistes des différentes parties du monde; (iii) des paléozoologistes ; (iv) non seulement des zoologistes systématiciens mais aussi, parmi ceux qui travaillent dans les domaines de la zoologie générale et des sciences biologiques appliquées (p.ex. médecine, agriculture, etc.), de ceux qui, en tant qu’utilisateurs des noms zoologiques, sont directe- ment intéressés au probléme de la nomenclature, et ont montré qu’ils comprenaient les principes de base de la nomenclature zoologique. Article 3. Durée du mandat des members de la Commission.— (a) Durée normale.—Le cinquiéme des membres de la Commission, a savoir ceux qui ont eu le mandat le plus long depuis leur derniere élection, cesseront leurs fonctions a la fin de chaque Congres. (b) Réélection——A moins que le Conseil de la Commission ne décide le contraire, un membre dont le mandat vient a expiration n’est pas immeédiatement rééligible. (c) Cessation anticipée de fonction.—Tout membre de la Commission sera déchargé de ses fonctions: (i) a la date de son 7Séme anniverasire; (ii) s'il présente sa démission en écrivant au Secrétaire, lorsque cette démission est acceptée par le Conseil; (iii) si, ne bénéficiant pas d’un congé d’absence, il manque en cing occasions consécutives 4 voter sur une question soumise pour décision 4 la Commission, et si, aprés un tel manquement, il n’a pas fourni au Secrétaire dans un délai de trois mois une explication écrite jugée acceptable par le Conseil. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Article 1. Status and Functions of the Commission.—The status, duties and powers of the Commission are defined in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Article 2. Membership of the Commission.— (a) Number.—The Commission shall ordinarily consist of 18 members or such larger number as the Commission may decide. The names and addresses of the members at any given time shall be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (b) Qualifications—The members of the Commission shall be eminent scientists, irrespective of nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature. (c) Representation of diverse interests.—As far as practicable, the composi- tion of the Commission shall be such as to secure a balanced represen- tation: (i) of systematists in the principal divisions of the animal kingdom; (ii) of zoologists from different parts of the world; (iii) of palaeozoologists ; (iv) not only of systematic zoologists, but also of those workers in general zoology and the applied biological sciences (e.g., medicine, agriculture, etc.) who, as users of zoological names, are directly interested in the problem of nomenclature, and who have shown an understanding of the general problems underlying zoological nomenclature. Article 3. Term of service of Members of the Commission.— (a) Normal term.—The term of that one-fifth of the members of the Com- mission who have had the longest service since they were last elected shall terminate at the close of each Congress. (b) Re-election.—Unless the Council of the Commission decides to the contrary, a member whose term of service terminates shall not be eligible for immediate re-election. (c) Prior termination of membership.—The membership of any member of the Commission shall terminate: (i) on the date of his 75th birthday; (ii) if he tenders his resignation in writing to the Secretary, when this resignation is accepted by the Council; (iii) if, not being on leave of absence, he fails on five successive occasions to record his vote on a question put to the Commission for decision, provided that within a period of three months following such failure he has not furnished the Secretary with a written explanation which the Council finds adequate. 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Article 4. Election des membres de la Commission.— (a) Publicité—La Commission doit publier, au moins une année avant un Congrés, une notice se référant a l’Article 2(b) de cette Constitution et: (i) annongant les noms, la nationalité et le domaine de spécialisation de chacun des membres de la Commission dont le mandat se termine 4 la cléture de ce Congrés et invitant a présenter des candidats a sa succession; (ii) annongant le nombre de siéges que la Commission, exergant ses pouvoirs d’aprés les dispositions de l’Article 2(a) ci-dessus, a décidé de pourvoir. (b) Diffusion.—La notice ci-dessus doit étre envoyée a l’organisme ayant autorité sur la Commission pour étre diffusée parmi ses membres. (c) Présentations de candidatures.—Les présentations de candidatures, accompagnées de précisions de la date de naissance, la nationalité, le domaine de la spécialisation et les titres de chaque candidat d’aprés les dispositions de l’Article 2(b), ainsi que les nom et qualité du ou des présentateurs, doivent étre envoyées au Secrétariat de la Commission dans les trois mois suivant la publication de la notification a laquelle il est référé dans 4(a) ci-dessus. (d) Liste des candidats.—La Commission doit préparer une liste de deux candidats proposés au plus pour chaque place a pourvoir conformément aux procédures spécifiées dans les statuts et doit présenter cette liste a la Section de Nomenclature du Congrés International de Zoologie. (e) Election.—L’élection doit étre conduite par la Section de Nomenclature au scrutin secret et les noms des élus parmi les noms figurant sur la liste 4 laquelle il est référé au (d) ci-dessus doivent étre soumis a la séance pléniére du Congrés pour ratification. (f) Vacances éventuelles.—Quand une vacance survient entre les Congrés par suite de la cessation anticipée de fonction d’un membre de la Commission [Art. 3(c)], la Commission peut remplir cette vacance en suivant les procédures spécifiées dans les statuts. Article 5. Fonctions des membres de la Commission.— (a) Pendant les sessions.—Un membre de la Commission a le devoir d’assister a chaque session de la Commission, s’il le peut, et d’assister 4 chaque réunion au cours d’une session 4 moins qu’il ne soit excusé, pour des raisons impératives, par le président de séance. (b) Entre les sessions.—Un membre de la Commission doit voter, dans les délais prescrits, sur chaque question qui lui est soumise 4 cette fin par le Secrétaire. (c) Congé d’absence.—Un membre de la Commission qui est temporairement dans l’impossibilité de s’aquitter de ses fonctions devrait demander (si possible 4 l’avance), par l’intermédiaire du Secrétaire, un congé d’absence pour une période spécificée. Article 6. Membres du bureau.—Le bureau de la Commission comprend un Président, un Vice-Président et tels autres membres qu’en décidera éventuelle- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 Article 4. Election of Members of the Commission.— (a) Notice.—The Commission shall publish, not less than one year in advance of a Congress, a notice quoting Article 2(b) of this Constitution and announcing: (i) the names, nationalities and fields of specialisation of the members of the Commission whose terms of service will end at the close of that Congress and inviting nominations for candidates to succeed them; (ii) announcing the number of seats which the Commission, exercising its powers under Article 2(a) above, has decided are to be filled. (b) Circulation.—The above notice shall be sent to the body having authority over the Commission for circulation to its members. (c) Nominations.—Nominations, accompanied by a statement of the date of birth, nationality, fields of specilisation and qualifications under Article 2(b) of each candidate, and of the name(s) and status of the nominator(s), shall be sent to the Secretariat of the Commission within three months of the publication of the notice referred to in (a) above. (d) List of Candidates.—The Commission shall prepare a list of not more than two nominees for each place to be filled under procedures to be specified in the By-Laws and shall present it to the Section on Nomen- clature of the International Congress of Zoology. (e) Election.—The election shall be conducted by the Section on Nomen- clature by secret ballot and the names of those elected from the list referred to in (d) above shall be submitted to the plenary session of the Congress for ratification. (f) Casual vacancies.—When a vacancy arises between Congresses owing to the prior termination of membership of a Commissioner [Art. 3(c)], the Commission may fill the vacancy by procedures specified in the By-Laws. Article 5. Duties of Members of the Commission.— (a) At Sessions.—It shall be the duty of a Member of the Commission to attend each Session of the Commission if it is possible for him to do so, and to attend each meeting during a session unless excused for compelling reasons by the presiding officer. (b) Between Sessions.—It shall be the duty of a member of the Commission to vote, within the prescribed period, upon each question submitted to him for that purpose by the Secretary. (c) Leave of Absence.—A member of the Commission who is temporarily unable to perform his duties should apply through the Secretary (if possible in advance) for leave of absence for a specified period. Article 6. Officers.—The Officers of the Commission shall be a President, a Vice-President, and such other officers as the Commission shall decide. The 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ment la Commission. Les fonctions des membres du bureau doivent étre spécifiées dans les statuts. Article 7. Conseil.—Le Président, le Vice-Président, le Président sortant et d’autres membres de la Commission (ordinairement deux), suffisants pour porter le total 4 cing, forment un Conseil. Ce Conseil est chargé, au nom de la Commission, de remplir les fonctions qui lui sont spécifiquement assignées suivant les dispositions de l’Article précédent et des Articles suivants, et de contr6ler entre les sessions le travail de la Commission, en dehors des taches spécifiquement attribuées 4 un membre du bureau ou au Secrétariat et de celles que le Président n’estime pas assez importantes pour qu’elles requiérent un vote formel de la Commission. Le Conseil peut désigner des membres de la Com- mission pour exercer des fonctions spéciales. Article 8. Election des membres du bureau et du Conseil.—Les membres du bureau et du Conseil sont élus par la Commission au scrutin secret comme il est spécifié dans les statuts. Article 9. Secrétariat.—Le Conseil désignera un Secrétaire qui peut étre un membre de la Commission servant a titre bénévole ou, si les moyens financiers le permettent, un employé salarié. I! peut aussi, si les moyens financiers le permettent, employer un Secrétaire assistant et un personnel de bureau dont les fonctions doivent étre déterminées par le Secrétaire sous reserve de l’approbation du Conseil. Article 10. Comités.— (a) Réle et composition.—Le Conseil, par l'intermédiaire du Président, peut désigner des comités consultatifs et ad hoc pour faciliter les taches de rédaction et de recherche du Secrétariat ou pour assister la Commission de n’importe quelle autre maniére. Des zoologistes qui ne sont pas membres de la Commission peuvent étre élus pour participer aux travaux de tels comités. (b) Soumission de rapports.—Chaque comité ad hoc doit faire un rapport au Conseil dans les délais prévus au moment de sa désignation ou lorsque le Consiel le sollicite. Les comités ad hoc se dissolvent en soumettant leur rapport final. Le mandat de tout comité expire en méme temps que le mandat du Président qui l’a désigné. Le nouveau Président peut désigner de nouveau tout comité existant au moment du départ de son prédecesseur. Article 11. Sessions.— (a) Sessions générales.—Une session générale de la Commission doit étre tenue 4 l’occasion de chaque Congrés et doit comprende une réunion pour les présentations de candidatures en vue de I’élection des membres de la Commission d’aprés les dispositions de l’Article 4. Une session générale peut commencer avant et continuer aprés un Congrés. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 duties of the Officers shall be stated in the By-Laws. Article 7. Council.—The President, the Vice-President, the past President, and sufficient other members of the Commission (ordinarily 2) to bring the total to five shall form a Council. This Council is charged to perform, on behalf of the Commission, the duties assigned to it specifically under the provisions of the preceding and following Articles and to supervise the work of the Commission between Sessions, not specifically assigned to an officer or to the Secretariat nor deemed by the President to require a formal vote by the Commission. The Council may designate members of the Commission to serve in a special capacity. Article 8. Election of Officers and members of Council.—The Officers and members of Council shall be elected by the Commission by secret ballot as specified in the By-Laws. Article 9. Secretariat.—The Council shall appoint a Secretary, who may be either a member of the Commission serving in an honorary capacity, or, finances permitting, a salaried employee. It may also, finances permitting, employ an assistant secretary and clerical staff, whose duties shall be determined by the Secretary subject to approval by the Council. Article 10. Committees.— (a) Appointment and Functions.—The Council, through the President, may appoint advisory and ad hoc committees to facilitate the editorial or fact-finding tasks of the Secretariat or to assist the Commission in any other way. Zoologists who are not members of the Commission are eligible to serve on such committees. (b) Submission of reports——Each ad hoc committee must report to the Council at the time stated in the terms of its appointment or when called upon by the Council to do so. Ad hoc committees dissolve on sub- mitting their final report. The term of any committee expires simul- taneously with the term of the President who appointed it. The incom- ing President may re-appoint any committee in existence at the time of his predecessor’s retirement. Article 11. Sessions.— (a) General Sessions.— (i) A general session of the Commission shall be held on the occasion of every Congress and shall include a meeting for the nomination of members of the Commission for election under the provisions of Article 4. (ii) A general session may begin before and continue after a Congress. 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) Sessions spéciales.—La Commission peut convoquer une session spéciale a tout moment et en tout lieu de son choix, pourvu que: (i) les questions qui seront discutées pendant cette session soient connues a l’avance de tous les membres de le Commission; (ii) seules les questions ainsi portées 4 la connaissance de la Commission soient discutées pendant cette session; (iii) il n’y ait pas d’élections pendant une session spéciale. Article 12. Vote.—A moins que cela ne soit autrement spécifié dans le Code ou la présente Constitution, la procédure suivante doit étre appliquée quand la Commission vote en matiére de nomenclature zoologique. (a) Dans les cas ordinaires.—Dans les cas qui n’impliquent pas l’usage des pleins pouvoirs, une décision affirmative sur toute proposition doit étre considérée comme ayant été prise par la Commission lorsqu’une majorité simple des votants a émis un vote favorable dans les délais stipules sur le bulletin de vote. (b) Dans les cas impliquant l’usage des pleins pouvoirs.—Dans de tels cas (voir Article 79 du Code) une décision affirmative sur toute proposition ne doit étre considérée comme ayant été prise que lorsque les deux tiers des votes validement émis sont en faveur de la proposition et a condition que six mois au moins avant le vote prévu un avis en ait été soumis pour publication 4 trois périodiques zoologiques au moins, dont un publié en Europe et un en Amérique. (c) Votes conditionnels—Un membre de la Commission qui au lieu d’émettre un vote inconditionnel, indique qu’il désire appuyer le point de vue de la majorité sera considéré comme ayant voté dans ce sens. (d) Votes négatifs—Un membre de la Commission émettant un vote négatif peut, s’il le désire, renvoyer avec son bulletin de vote un court exposé de ses raisons d’agir ainsi. Tout exposé de cette nature sera publié intégralement avec le résultat du vote. Article 13. Dispositions financiéres.—La Commission quand elle n’est pas préparée 4 réunir ou 4 administrer ses propres fonds est autorisée a ces fins a établir des relations bénéfiques avec un organisme tel que I’Jnternational Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, qui se chargera d’agir en conformité avec la ligne de conduite de la Commission et des Congrés. La Commission a toute liberté pour mettre fin a de tels rapports. Article 14. Fonctions de rédaction de la Commission.—La Commission doit faire paraitre et, si les moyens financiers le permettent, peut elle-méme éditer des communications diverses qui seront préparées et rédigées au Secrétariat sous la direction du Conseil. (a) Décisions.—La Commission devra publier les Déclarations, Opinions et Directions incorporant les décisions de la Commission, ainsi qu'il est spécifié dans les Articles 77 et 78 du Code. (b) Information.—Si les moyens financiers le permettent, la Commission devra publier un périodique afin de tenir les zoologistes informés des cas Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97 (b) Special Sessions.—The Commission may convene a special session at any time or place of its choice, provided that: (i) the business to be transacted at that session is made known in advance to all members of the Commission; (ii) only the business so made known is to be transacted in the course of the session. (iii) no elections shall take place at a special session. Article 12. Voting——Unless otherwise specified in the Code or in this Constitution, the following procedures shall apply when the Commission votes on matters of zoological nomenclature. (a) In ordinary cases.—In cases not involving the use of the plenary powers, an affirmative decision shall be deemed to have been taken by the Commission when a simple majority of those voting votes in favour within the time period stipulated on the voting paper. (b) In cases involving the use of the plenary powers.—In such cases (see Article 79 of the Code), an affirmative decision shall be deemed to have been taken only when two thirds of the votes validly cast are in favour of the proposal, and provided that not less than six months’ notice of the impending vote had been submitted for publication in at least three zoological serials, including one published in Europe, and one in America. (c) Conditional votes—A member of the Commission, who instead of casting an unconditional vote, states that he wishes to support the majority view shall be deemed to have voted in that sense. (d) Negative votes.—A member of the Commission casting a negative vote may, if he wishes, send in with his voting paper a short statement of his reasons for so doing; any such statements shall be published along with the result of the vote. Article 13. Financial arrangements.—The Commission when not prepared to raise or administer its own funds is empowered for such purposes to enter into a beneficent relationship with a body such as the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, that undertakes to act in accordance with the policy of the Commission and the Congresses. The Commission may terminate such a relationship at its discretion. Article 14. Editorial duties of the Commission.—The Commission shall issue and, finances permitting may itself publish, various communications, to be prepared and edited in the office of the Secretary under the guidance of the Council. (a) Decisions.—It shall be the duty of the Commission to publish Declara- tions, Opinions and Directions embodying the decisions of the Commis- sion, as specified in Articles 77 and 78 of the Code. (b) Information.—Finances permitting, it shall be the duty of the Commission to publish a periodical for the purpose of keeping zoologists informed on 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature en instance devant la Commission et afin de publier la procédure de la Commission, les informations et la discussion générale des questions de nomenclature. (c) Tenue a jour des ‘‘Listes Officielles’’ et des ‘‘Index’’.—La Commission compile et tient a jour les Listes et Index mentionnés ci-dessous: (i) La Liste Officielle des Noms du Groupe-Famille en Zoologie; (ii) La Liste Officielle des Noms Génériques en Zoologie; (iii) La Liste Officielle des Noms Spécifiques en Zoologie; (iv) La Liste Officielle des Travaux en Zoologie; (v) L’Index Officiel des Noms Rejetés et Invalides du Groupe-Famille en Zoologie; (vi) L’Index Officiel des Noms Génériques Rejetés et Invalides en Zoologie; (vii) L’Index Officiel des Noms Spécifiques Rejetés et Invalides en Zoologie; (vii) L’Index Officiel des Travaux Rejetés et Invalides en Zoologie. Article 15. Pouvoirs exceptionnels.—Si, 4 la suite de circonstances excep- tionelles, le Congrés est empéché de tenir sa réunion périodique normale, la Commission ou Je Conseil, ou 4 défaut le Président peuvent assumer et exercer tout pouvoir extraordinaire que l’un ou l'autre peuvent estimer nécessaire pour assurer la continuité de l’existence de la Commission, pourvu que: (i) les pouvoirs assumés n’incluent pas le pouvoir de modifier le Code et que ni le Conseil ni le Président ne s’arrogent le pouvoir de rendre des Déclarations ou des Opinions au nom de la Commission; (ii) a la premiére réunion du Congrés aprés la fin de telles circonstances exceptionelles, la Commission soumette un rapport au Congrés concernant les pouvoirs extraordinaires assumés durant les circon- stances exceptionelles et l’action accomplie en conséquence. Article 16. Amendements au Code.—En prenant en considération une proposition pour un amendement au Code, la Commission doit: (i) publier la proposition; (ii) soumettre pour publication dans au moins deux journaux scienti- fiques publiés sur des continents différents des notices annongant la réception et la publication de toute proposition de cet ordre; (ili) recevoir et prendre en considération les commentaires des zoologistes sur toute proposition, qui sont regus pendant une période d’une année aprés la date de publication de la proposition par la Com- mission; (iv) voter sur la proposition aprés une période d’au moins une année aprés la date de publication par la Commission de la proposition; (v) publier sa décision et soumettre un rapport devant le prochain Congrés et, si deux tiers ou plus des votes validement émis sur une question exigeant un amendement au Code sont affirmatifs, recom- mander son adoption parle Congrés en tant qu’amendement au Code. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 cases pending before the Commission, for publishing the procedure of the Commission, for announcements, and for the general discussion of nomenclatural questions. (c) Maintenance of Official Lists and Indexes.—The Commission shall compile and maintain the undermentioned Lists and Indexes: (i) Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (ii) Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (iii) Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (iv) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology; (v) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (vi) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (vii) Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature; (viii) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomen- clature. Article 15. Emergency Powers.—If, as a result of an emergency, the Congress is prevented from holding its normal periodical meeting, the Com- mission, or the Council, or failing this, the President, may assume and exercise such extraordinary powers as it or he may consider necessary to secure the continued existence of the Commission, provided that: (i) the powers assumed shall not include power to vary the Code or power by the Council or the President to render Declarations or Opinions on behalf of the Commission; (ii) that, at the first meeting of the Congress after the end of such an emergency, the Commission shall submit a report to the Congress regarding the extraordinary powers assumed during the emergency and the action taken thereunder. Article 16. Amendments.— (a) Amendments to the Code.—In considering a proposal for amendment to the Code, the Commission shall: (i) publish the proposal; (ii) submit notices for publication in not less than two scientific journals published in different continents announcing the receipt and publica- tion of any such proposal; (iii) receive and consider comments from zoologists on any such proposal that are received within one year after the date of publication of the proposal by the Commission; (iv) vote upon the proposal after a period of not less than one year from the date of publication by the Commission of the proposal; (v) publish its decision and report it to the next succeeding Congress and, if two thirds or more of the votes validly cast on a matter requiring amendment to the Code are in the affirmative, recommend its adoption by the Congress as an amendment to the Code. 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Article 17. Statuts—lLa Commission a le pouvoir d’adopter un ensemble de statuts régissant ceux de ses réglements et activités non couverts par la Constitution. La Commission a autorité pour modifier ces statuts par un vote majoritaire lorsque les circonstances l’exigent. Ces statuts concerneront les sujets tels que les fonctions des membres du bureau, les méthodes par lesquelles les présentations de candidatures doivent étre obtenues en cas de vacances 4a la Commission, les relations entre la Commission et le Secrétariat, les réglements concernant la procédure des requétes et l’adoption des programmes de travail et des priorités et les autres affaires de la Commission. Article 18. Entrée en vigueur.—Cette Constitution et tous les amendments subséquents prendront effet a la fin du Congrés pendant lequel cette Constitution ou ces amendements seront ratifiés. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 Article 17. By-Laws.—The Commission is empowered to adopt a set of By-Laws governing those of its regulations and activities not covered by the Constitution. The Commission has authority to modify these By-Laws by a majority vote as the occasion demands. These By-Laws will deal with such matters as the duties of the officers, the methods by which nominations are to be obtained for vacancies on the Commission, the relations between the Com- mission and the Secretariat, with regulations concerning the treatment to be given to applications and the adoption of time schedules and priorities, and with other business matters of the Commission. Article 18. Inauguration.—This Constitution and all subsequent amend- ments to it shall take effect at the close of the Congress at which it, or they, are ratified. sib lh OS js @abeaore Looe hl ae ae 4) Diy? (roe, S4.-G) “7H af Mb UP eg As «stem Araby ne weed YY iy Hiner ie * vorpal i ran, Peete >a TE ree wimnTod oad rab oh yOu y “WA a Pace ei a . oi yonrouyt (ited OK Thy GRA renutizean Vitter 4 thes ee ol bowl aitio ie ceadyenan Re Ob PRM roca Tonto ¢ ‘ ¥{ obattms & oreaen bettas ~ tag ‘ i, t - aa 5 = ‘ a ‘ si r i. = L Z ; . wa a ae he 7 y &: i ay a i a i 4 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Honorary Life President The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) B. The Members of the Trust The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C., C.H. Mon. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. (Secretary and Managing Director) Dr. N. E. Hickin Dr. L. B. Holthuis Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Mr. R. V. Melville Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright, C.B. Dr. G. F. de Witte C. The Officers of the Trust Margaret Green, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) International Union of Biological Sciences, Division of Zoology: Annex A.1 Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature. . International Union of Biological Sciences, Division of Zoology: Annex A.2 Revised Statutes of the Division of Zoology .. Amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted since the XVI International eh aa of Zones bara ton, 1963 Amendements au Code International de Nomenclature Zoologique adoptés depuis le XVI ters Internationale de ee eae: ton, 1963 : es ‘ The Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature La Constitution de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique .. 74 75 79 78 91 90 © 1974. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshire Volume 31, Part 3 pp. 103-166 20th September, 1974 Nr ee 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 .. 6 ae ae LOS Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powersincertaincases .. 103 (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 (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD 1974 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. W. D. L. RIDE (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Secretary: Mr. R. V. MELVILLE (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, 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 Dr. Henning LeMcuE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). Opisthobranchia; Phylogeny Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960). Echinoidea, Asteroidea Dr. E. G. MUNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962). Mollusca Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mollusca Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithology; Evolution Prof. 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 6000) (28 August 1963) (President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. Sasprosky (U.S. 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 EisENMANN (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, SW7 2DE) (30 January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology Dr. Y. I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea Professor F. M. BAYER (Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972). Octocorallia; Systematics Dr. John O. Coruiss (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972). Protozoa; Systematics Prof. Dr. H. K. Erpen (Institut fiir Paldontologie, Universitdt Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology Professor T. HaBe (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972). Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH 1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972). Mollusca Dr. I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (20 February 1972). Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Jnstituto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. B. B. RoHDENDORE (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) (21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology Prof. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). Lepidoptera Dr. C. Dupuis (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). Diptera BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 31, Part 3 (pp. 103-166) 20th September, 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 Donacilla De Blainville, 1819 (Mollusca). Z.N.(S.) 1959. (2) Designation of a type-species for Oxystomina Filipjev, 1918 (Nematoda). Z.N.(S.) 2031. (3) Suppression of Didermocerus Brooke, 1828 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1779. *(4) Suppression of Cicada cingulata (Fabricius) var. obscura Hudson, 1891 (Insecta, Homoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1888. *(5) Suppression of Hymenosoma laeve Targioni Tozzetti, 1877 (Crustacea, Brachyura). Z.N.(S.) 2014. *(6) Suppression of Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837 (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Z.NAS.) 2048. *(7) Designation of type-species for Dactylopius Costa, 1835 and Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840; proposed suppression of Diaprosteci Costa, 1828 (Insecta, Homoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2056. *(8) Suppression of Coccus sativus Lancry, 1791, Coccus mexicanus Lamarck, 1801 and Coccus silvestris Lancry, 1791 (Insecta, Homoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2057. (9) Request for a ruling on the authorship of Conus moluccensis (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 2059. (10) Conservation of Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 and the suppres- sion of Aphis pyri Kittel, 1827 and Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802 and seven other binominals proposed by Kittel in 1827 (Insecta, Homoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2062. c/o British Museum (Natural History), MARGARET GREEN Cromwell Road, Scientific Assistant London, SW7 5BD, England International Commission on April 1974 Zoological Nomenclature 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON THE CONSERVATION OF DICTYONEMA FLABELLIFORME (EICHWALD, 1840) (GRAPTOLITHINA) BY DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE. Z.N.(S.) 1776 (See volume 24, pages 49-52) By A. M. Obut (Professor, Institute of Geology & Geophysics, Novosibirsk 90, U.S.S.R.) I have read with great interest the note by Professor O. M. B. Bulman on the conservation of Dictyonema flabelliforme (Eichwald, 1840) by the designation of a neotype, and I consider it my duty to tell you the following: The results of detailed study of materials from various countries, set out by O. M. B. Bulman in his two articles in 1966 and in the above mentioned note, have confirmed wholly and precisely the accuracy of deductions, based on comparative morphology of Dictyonema specimens (representatives) from the group of ‘‘Dictyonema flabelli- forme”; on taxonomy and nomenclature of the species Dictyonema flabelliforme (Eichwald); on its synonym Dictyonema norvegicum Kjerulf and the independence of the species Dictyonema graptolithum Kjerulf, all being published by A. M. Obut, 1953, in ‘“‘The Dendroids of the north-western part of the Russian platform’’. Thus, these questions have been brought to conclusive evidence. It is impossible, however, to agree with certain suggestions formulated at the end of Professor Bulman’s application, about the preservation of names previously wrongly classified by some palaeontologists and partly by O. M. B. Bulman himself, of the Dictyonema species mentioned above. We must, as a general rule, observe the principle of a “‘type specimen’’, otherwise, instability will result and zoological nomenclature may become ambiguous. Although One can imagine that it would be convenient for English palaeontologists to have the type-specimens in which they are interested in the British Museum, it is impossible to choose the neotype from the material in the British Museum when in the museum of another country, where the first description was made, they have their own already selected type specimen (lectotype). The specimen in question is the lectotype of Dictyonema flabelliforme (Eichwald) No. 1/28a2 from Eichwald’s collection which is kept in the Museum of Historical Geology, Leningrad State University. The pro- posed actions, no doubt, could lead to the arbitrary violation of priority and authority in the work of foreign scientists. Certainly there are exceptions which have evoked the status of ‘nomen conser- vandum”’ but the worry of Professor Bulman about stratigraphical difficulties, which might argue in favour of varying the strict nomenclature of species of the group of D. flabelliforme, does not have any serious foundation. The practice of palaeontology and stratigraphy shows convincingly that the specialists concerned get accustomed with time, to more complicated rational corrections of previous errors, and that their new stratigraphical standards and tables become nearer to reality. We must add to this that a nomenclature which corresponds to reality, and which is developed by common efforts, will, in this case too, contribute to a more efficient systematics of the existing important number of independent species of Dictyonema which seems to be a leading group for the stratigraphy of the Lower Tremadocian deposits. COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF A PROPOSAL BY N. D. RILEY AND L. G. HIGGINS ON PAPILIO ACTAEON FABRICIUS, 1775 v. PAPILIO ACTEON VON ROTTEMBURG, 1775. Z.N.(S.) 1937 By Lee D. Miller (Allyn Museum of Entomology, Sarasota, Florida 33580, U.S.A). One of the avowed goals of The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is the promotion of “stability and universality in the scientific names of animals”. The replacement of well-known names by obscure senior synonyms inevitably causes Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 the non-systematist to feel that the ‘“‘Code” actually works against stability and universality and further results in certain anti-taxonomic feelings to be rampant among many ecologists, physiologists, etc. For this reason alone systematists should con- sider very carefully before upsetting well-known names; regrettably many have not given the matter such thought. Happily, N. D. Riley and L. G. Higgins have considered the effects of discarding the familiar European hesperiid species name Thymelicus acteon (von Rottemburg) in favour of validating Papilio actaeon Fabricius only long enough for it to become a synonym of the familiar South American lycaenid Arcas imperialis (Cramer). The nomenclatorial confusion thus avoided is great, and Riley and Higgins are to be con- gratulated on their proposal. I urge the Commission to take speedy and affirmative action on their proposal for the resolution of the possible nomenclatorial confusion which could result in application of strict priority in this case. I would further say that the Commission’s plenary powers should be used more, rather than less, for the purpose of validating familiar, though junior synonyms of names of well-known animals. This, more than anything the Commission could do, would enhance the stature of systematics in the eyes of non-systematic zoologists throughout the world. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF CYMATIIDAE IREDALE, 1913. Z.N.(S.) 1939 (See volume 28, pages 59-61, 142 and volume 29, page 109) By R. V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) On 28 November 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)10 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 61. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 28 February 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—seven (7), received in the following order: Vokes, Tortonese, Eisenmann, Habe, Binder, Ride, Kraus. Negative votes—thirteen (13): Dupuis, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Jaczewski, Willink, Sabrosky, Alvarado*, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Heppell, Nye, Bernardi. Abstentions—one (1): Melville. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Simpson. Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Brinck, Munroe, Starobogatov. *Commissioner Alvarado requested that his vote should count with the majority. Commissioners Erben and Corliss returned late affirmative votes. In returning their voting papers, the Commissioners made the following comments: Dr. C. Dupuis (30.xi.1973): “‘Je fonde mon refus sur l’excellent commentaire de Knudsen et Lemche (Bull. 28 : 142); il n’est pas possible d’inverser la priorité de CYMATIIDAE et RANELLIDAE et de les inscrire tous deux dans la liste officielle. J’ajoute qu’en raison du caractére mouvant de la taxinomie au niveau de famille, moins on inscrit de noms dans la liste ad hoc, mieux cela vaut’’. Prof. E. Tortonese (7.xii.1974): “I vote for the proposal because it appears that CYMATIIDAE was universally used during the last 50 years (Bull. zool. Nomencl.29 : 109)”. Prof. Dr. T. Jaczewski (10.xii.1973): “‘I support my decided objection and counter- proposal published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 142”. Dr. A. Willink (8.xii.1973): “I agree with the comments of Knudsen and Lemche”’. Mr. R. V. Melville (17.1.1974): ““No vote. This case is not fully prepared at this stage”. Prof. Dr. R. Alvarado (25.i.1974): “I wish to vote with the majority of the Com- missioners”. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Prof. B. B. Rohdendorf (11.ii.1974): “I vote against the conservation of the name CYMATIIDAE Iredale, 1913 because it is contradictory to the Law of Priority’’. Mr. D. Heppell (26.ii.1974): “I vote against the proposals to give the family-group name CYMATIIDAE Iredale precedence over RANELLIDAE Gray, and support the com- ments of Knudsen and Lemche already published. Cernohorsky and Beu submit an impressive list of authors who have followed Iredale’s use of CYMATIIDAE, but it must be realized that, of the forty-nine references cited, thirty-one date from 1961 or earlier when a different Code was in operation. In the 1905 Régles the section dealing with the Law of Priority made no reference to family-group names, but customary usage condoned the acceptance of the oldest generic name in any family as its type-genus. Another seven of the cited references predate the demonstration by Dell & Dance of the proper attribution of the genus Ranella to that family also containing Cymatium. As the date and authorship of names of taxa of the family-group were not considered among malacologists, before 1961, as of much importance, these data are often difficult to determine. Such information is not provided by most nomenclators or other works of reference. It is not surprising, therefore, that many malacologists continued to use the name CYMATIIDAE, especially in regional malacofaunas such as that cited by the applicants, no doubt in excusable ignorance of the priority of other family-group names. Now that Cernohorsky and Beu have brought their error to light, there would seem to be no good argument to contra-indicate a general adoption of RANELLIDAE as the valid name. Appeals to the cause of nomenclatural stability carry little weight in a family in which, as Dr. Beu’s own excellent papers have shown, almost every genus has been beset with nomenclatural or taxonomic complexities. “At the subfamily level I suggest some improvement to the nomenclatural situation outlined by the applicants in their reply to comments could be effected by the sup- pression of the unused names AQUILLIDAE Pilsbry & Vanatta, 1904, and PERSONINAE [PERSONINA] Gray, 1854. If these two groups are to be recognised at the subfamily level, it would be better to establish a name based on Cabestana Réding, 1798 (the valid senior synonym of Aquillus) for the former, and employ DisTORSIINAE Kuroda & Habe, 1971, for the latter. The seniority of sEPTINAE can be increased by the appli- cation of Article 40(b) and, by the same reasoning, CyMATIINAE can take priority from the date of the rejected LoTORIINAE. The subfamily arrangement would then be as follows: RANELLIDAE RANELLINAE Gray, 1854 [SEPTINAE Dall, 1904 [1891]] (if recognised) CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 [1897] CHARONIINAE Powell, 1933 [DIsTORSINAE Kuroda & Habe, 1971] (if recognised) “Tf, of these, only RANELLINAE and CYMATIIDAE were placed on the Official List, CYMATIINAE could continue to be used in the sense of CYMATIINAE + SEPTINAE despite the priority of the latter name [if the Official List of Family-Group Names has any significance], but both names would be available to those zoologists who considered them to apply to distinct subfamilies. I certainly do not like the idea of the currently unused name SEPTINAE being added to the Official List just to “‘preserve’’ it in case it should be required for resurrection at some future date. “One further problem, not mentioned in the original application nor in the com- ments thereon, would seem appropriate to bring to the notice of the Commission. As all categories of the family-group are of co-ordinate status in nomenclature (Article 36), the name of the superfamily must be based on that of the oldest contained family. That to which the RANELLIDAE is referred was known as the DOLIACEA, although recent authors have preferred the name TONNACEA. When Jonna Briinnich, 1771 (a senior subjective synonym of Dolium Lamarck, 1801), was placed on the Official List (Opinion 237), no action was taken then or subsequently to deal with the family name TONNIDAE. According to Kilias, 1962 (Das Tierreich 77 : 5), TONNIDAE dates from Suter, 1913, whereas the synonymous DOLMDAE dates from Gray, 1856 [? recte 1857]. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 “Both these names are junior to RANELLIDAE Gray, 1854. Herrmannsen, 1848, however, cites DOLIARIA Latreille, 1825, as a family-group name. Although Kilias implies that he is using TONNIDAE illegally, though in the spirit of Article 5 of the 1905 Régles (‘‘The name of a family or subfamily is to be changed when the name of its type-genus is changed’’), the desired result can be arrived at by invoking Article 40(b) of the present Code. I recommend, therefore, that, to allow the currently used name TONNACEA to continue as the valid name of the superfamily, by removing any doubt as to its priority, the name TONNIDAE Suter, 1913, be placed on the Official List with priority as of its rejected synonym DOLIIDAE [DOLIARIA], 1825. “To summarize, I oppose proposal 1; I support proposal 2a (but with priority reckoned from 1897) and 2b, and oppose proposal 2c; 1 support proposals 3a—c and 4a-c. I propose additionally that the names AQUILLIDAE Pilsbry & Vanatta, 1904, and PERSONINAE [PERSONINA] Gray, 1854, be placed on the Official Index of Rejected Names, and that the name TONNIDAE Suter, 1913 be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with priority reckoned from 1825”’. Prof. G. Bernardi (18.ii.1974): ‘‘Les coupes taxonomiques du groupe-famille parescnt ici encore mal fixés et il me semble donc préférable d’appliquer strictement ie Code”. The fresh evidence produced by Mr. Heppell thus effectively re-opens this case. FURTHER COMMENT ON CHANDA HAM. BUCH., HAMILTONIA SWAINSON, AND THEIR TYPE SPECIES (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1946 By P. J. P. Whitehead, P. H. Greenwood and E. Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 5BD) This comment supports the application of Talwar, 1971 (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 28 (3/4) : 104-5) to designate Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822 as type-species of Chanda (proposed in the same work), with Hamiltonia Swainson, 1839 a junior objective synonym. We have tried here to show that the strong criticism of Talwar’s application levelled by Collette, 1973 (Joc. cit., 30(2) : 69), on behalf of an ad hoc Nomenclature Committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetolo- gists, is based on a misunderstanding of Swainson’s intentions when he. proposed Hamiltonia. At least nine overt or implied type designations have been made, either for Chanda or for Hamiltonia, or for both at once. Cuvier, 1828—by faint implication setifer, or ruconius if Chanda is a junior synonym of Equula Cuvier, 1816; Swainson, 1839—ovata (new name for nama) or /ala (new name or mis-spelling for lata); Chanda in parenthesis after description of Hamiltonia; Bleeker, 1874—ovata (implied = nama) for Hamiltonia; first actual type designa- tion, i.e. “Spec. typ.”; Hamiltonia = Bogada Blkr., but Chanda not mentioned; Swain, 1882—ovata (= nama) for Hamiltonia; Chanda not mentioned; Fowler, 1905—ovata for Hamiltonia; lala for Chanda; misled by assuming /ata of Swainson not /ala Ham. Buch.; Jordan, 1917—ruconius for Chanda; Jordan, 1919—ruconius abandoned; ovata (= nama) accepted; Chanda = Hamil- tonia; Smith, 1945—nalua for Chanda; Fraser-Brunner, 1954—ovata (= nama) for Hamiltonia; lala for Chanda. Fowler’s is the earliest type designation for Chanda if it is distinct from Hamiltonia. If the two are synonyms, then Bleeker’s prior choice of ovata (= nama) must be accepted. Since Bleeker dealt with all genera in this and related families but did not give full synonymies, then it is reasonable to suppose that he omitted Chanda as a junior synonym (presumably of Hamiltonia, although this could be argued). Bleeker’s Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature intentions, however, would be irrelevant if it could be shown that Chanda and Hamil- pas — already synonyms, and this would in turn overrule Fowler’s designation for nda. Therefore, the nub of the argument is whether Swainson proposed Hamiltonia expressly as a substitute for Chanda, or whether it was a new genus that restricted Chanda to the seven Hamilton-Buchanan species not included in Hamiltonia. Two avenues exist to explore Swainson’s intentions: was he in the habit of supplying replacement names, and what did he do with the remaining species of Chanda? The first question can be very convincingly answered. In the second volume of the Natural History Swainson replaced nearly sixty existing names by ones of his own making, sometimes appending to them the device ‘sw.’ and sometimes not, sometimes citing the original name in parenthesis or in a footnote but more often not. The author who suffered most from this spate of replacement names was none other than Hamilton-Buchanan, Swainson blithely substituting his own species name on no less than thirty occasions. Next come Cuvier and Valenciennes with eight, then Riippell with five and Spix (plates in Spix & Agassiz) with six; Gray, Bennett, Yarrell, Lesueur, Freycinet and Pallas were also not neglected. Rarely has there been such a dedicated post-Linnaean name-replacer as William Swainson! It is pertinent to enquire into Swainson’s motives and to ask if they have any bearing on the problem of Chanda and Hamiltonia. A list of certain of the names and their replacements leaves us in no doubt as to at least one of Swainson’s intentions. In the case of Hamilton-Buchanan, Swainson replaced nama, lala, bacailia, daurana, phasa, soborna, chechra, canio, duda, raitborra and cuchia, for example, by ovata, lata, oblonga, vittatus, megalura, argentata, nebulosus, immaculatus, affinis, maculatus and punctatus. Similarly, Forsskal’s rogaa, louti and murdjan (cited from Riippell) were replaced by phaenistomus, longipinna and melanophrys; Cuvier’s toeroe by elongatus; Gmelin’s puntazzo by fasciata; Spix’s pirainha by ferox; and Bennett’s pepo by reticulata. A rather obvious pattern emerges and one that Swainson himself spelt out in a footnote (p. 309) on Sorubim Spix ( with Platystoma Agassiz placed in parenthesis). Swainson says “Platystoma having been used in ornithology, I retain the original name (although objectionable) of Spix; but I perfectly agree with Agassiz on the impropriety of barbaric names, whether generic or specific.” (our italics). Acarana Gray, for example, he replaced by his own Platycanthus; Sorubim he rendered as Sorubium. On a number of occasions Swainson stated his objections to a name and made it quite clear that he was proposing a substitute for a generic name and not merely a subgenus for the species listed. Thus, he replaced Vomer by Platysomus (p. 250) and said that he had done just that (p. 405); elsewhere (p. 407) he found vomer ‘‘a term altogether objectionable” and replaced it by setifer. He saw no reason why “the more ancient and classic name of Psetta, imposed by Aristotle upon this group” should be replaced by Rhombus, and still less why Psettus should be transferred to a group having no connection with the Psetta of the ancients and probably unknown to them (p. 302). His most blatant substitution was Labristoma on the grounds that the “name of Pseudochromis is so objectionable, that I hope the learned naturalist who proposed it will excuse me for offering another’. (p. 230). Although Swainson sometimes had other reasons for replacing a name (e.g. homonymy of Breviceps, p. 305), it is undeniable that one of his principal concerns was to weed out nomenclatural barbarities. In Hamilton-Buchanan’s Fishes of the Ganges (1822) a large number of species names were taken straight from the Bengali names used around Calcutta. Since the majority of Swainson’s replacements are for Hamilton- Buchanan names, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Hamiltonia was nothing but a respectable classical garb for the outlandish Bengali Chanda. The argument is reinforced by the indisputable replacement within that same genus of the Bengali nama and lala by the Latin ovata and Jata (the latter surely a latinization, not a mis- print). The argument seems to be clinched by Swainson’s placing of Chanda in parenthesis after the description of Hamiltonia, a procedure exactly followed for Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 Platysoma, which Swainson himself admitted to be a replacement for the objectionable Vomer. Dr. Collette asserts that there is no evidence that Hamiltonia was proposed as a substitute for Chanda. We believe otherwise. We consider that Swainson’s pre- dilection for replacing names, his evident dislike of barbaric names (especially those of Hamilton-Buchanan), and his inclusion of Chanda in parenthesis, can only lead to one conclusion: Chanda was replaced by Hamiltonia because it was barbaric. Wecan find no plausible counter-argument. If a counter-argument existed, it would have to explain Swainson’s intentions over the remaining species of Chanda; more especially, it would have to show that Swainson’s omission of species here, and in virtually every other genus or subgenus containing more than three or four species, was a positive taxonomic exclusion and not a negative one dictated by space, scope, ignorance or lack of figured example. There is evidence that the species included by Swainson were the ones known to him, but the counter- argument must prove that the ones excluded by him were also known and were excluded for that reason. We do not believe this to have been the case. Swainson included only two of Hamilton-Buchanan’s species of Chanda in his Hamiltonia, namely ovata (= nama) and /ata (= lala). In both cases the Swainson name was based solely on a Hamilton-Buchanan figure (pl. 39, fig. 37 and pl. 21, fig. 39—the latter, by an obvious misprint, given as 37 by Swainson). For Equula, Swainson again gave only two species, but out of Cuvier’s twenty-two species these were the only two that were illustrated. In fact, the majority of Swainson’s references to species are references to figures. Why then did Swainson omit the other three species of Chanda illustrated by Hamilton-Buchanan—ruconius (pl. 12, fig. 35), ranga (pl. 16, fig. 38) and nalua (pl. 6, fig. 36)? To some extent, the answer is perhaps space, the lack of which he mentioned at least three times (pp. 41, 61 and 80). Swainson was not attempting to rival the all-inclusive Histoire naturelle des poissons of Cuvier and Valenciennes. He was arguing a novel scheme of classification, as had Cuvier in the Régne animal twenty years before, and he could well have seen Cuvier’s book as a convenient model. The whole emphasis in Swainson’s book is on subgenera, genera and upwards, with species rarely discussed and only described in an Appendix (p. 385, sixty-two new or little-known fishes). In the majority of cases, Swainson listed only one, two or three species under a subgenus. Dr. Collette (in /itt.) has pointed to the case of Cepola (p. 259), for which nine species are given, and Trig/a (p. 262), for which no less than fourteen species are listed. We would mention also Dactylophorus (p. 262) for which nine species are given. These three genera are exceptions, but the reason for this is quite clear: in each case he had made a partial revision in his Appendix and thus knew well the species he was listing. Even so, six Trigla species were omitted from the list under the heading “‘&c. See Appendix”’. In the case of Chanda, therefore, there is no precedent for assuming that the omission of seven of Hamilton-Buchanan’s species (or three illustrated ones) was a positive taxonomic act. Even if it was, then one would expect to find them placed elsewhere, which they are not. His action here is entirely consistent with placing Chanda in parenthesis after the description of Hamiltonia; since Hamiltonia was not a genus but a subgenus (of Equula), it cannot be argued that Chanda was but a part of Hamiltonia, since the next taxonomic level was the species. Collette has chosen to endorse Fowler’s type designation of /ala for Chanda, but even here difficulties arise since Fowler mistakenly assumed that Swainson’s lata was the same as his ovata (i.e. nama) because of the error in figure numbers (fig. 37 for both). Fowler distributed the first eight of Hamilton-Buchanan’s species of Chanda between the genera Gerres (for setifer), Leiognathus (for ruconius), Ambassis (for nalua) and Hamiltonia (for nama, phula, bogoda, baculis and ranga). He was then left with /ala, already the type of Pseudambassis Bleeker, 1874. If Hamiltonia was distinct from Chanda, then by elimination /ala must be the type of Chanda, with Pseudambassis in synonymy. We find no evidence that Fowler attempted a critical appraisal of Swainson’s intentions or he would at least have commented on Bleeker’s omission of Chanda. Jordan’s mature choice was ovata (= nama) and he stressed 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature that Hamiltonia was a junior synonym of Chanda. The only subsequent dissenters were Smith, who followed Cuvier’s tactics (exclusion of the first two species of Chanda), but with the reverse result (Chanda = Ambassis, not Equula), and Fraser-Brunner (who seems uncritically to have followed Fowler’s lead). Since Jordan’s Genera of fishes is usually regarded as a prime source of information on type designations or confirmations, it requires a rather critical appraisal if Jordan’s decisions are to be reversed. In the case of Hamiltonia and Chanda we find no evidence that authors have considered the problem in the detail presented here. Collette’s statement, on behalf of the Nomenclature Committee, that there is no evidence or proof that Hamiltonia was proposed as a substitute for Chanda, seems an insufficient argument in the face of the evidence produced here. To sum up, it seems inescapable to us that Hamiltonia was proposed as a replace- ment in toto for the barbaric Chanda and must, in consequence, share the same type species. The first designation of a type appears to have been that of Bleeker in 1874, who chose ovata for Hamiltonia. Both were replacement names, as stated by Jordan, therefore Chanda nama is the type of Chanda. Collette’s dismay at the loss of a genus- group name before a revision has been done should not be allowed to cloud the issue because of the dangerous precedent that it might create for other Swainson replacement names; neither do we think that, given the indecisive taxonomic state of the species and genera involved, there is any cause to conserve a generic name against its nomenclatural fate. Although the nomenclatural solution is easily effected within the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, we favour a ruling by the Commission and, with Talwar’s agreement, request the following action: (1) to set aside all type-species designations for the genus Chanda Hamilton- Buchanan, 1822 made prior to this ruling and to designate Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822 as type-species of that genus; (2) to recognise Hamiltonia Swainson, 1839 as a junior objective synonym (un- justified replacement name) of Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, but not to reject it permanently (in case of a senior homonym of Chanda); (3) to place the generic name Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822 (gender: feminine), type-species Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (4) to place the species nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, as published in the binomen Chanda nama, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON DITYLENCHUS FILIPJEV, 1936 (NEMATODA): APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1955 (See volume 28, pages 112-113) By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) There seems to be an omission in the proposals. May I suggest to add?: (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the name Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1822, as suppressed under (1) above. By P. A. A. Loof (Department of Nematology, Wageningen) I am sending a list of references in which the name Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936 has been used during the period 1969-1972. This is in accordance with Article 79(b) which requires at least 10 different publications by at least 5 different authors from the last 50 years. Ditylenchus is a name widely used in agricultural and economic literature. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 VuonG Huu-Hai & RopriGuEz, H. 1970. Agron. trop., Nogent 25 : 52-66 Moors, J. F. 1971. Jr. J. agric. Res. 10 : 207-211 CAuBEL, G. 1969. C.r. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Agric. Fr. 55 : 497-507 PLANER, F. R. 1972. Nematologica 18 : 417 VAN Os, H. 1971. Acta Horticulturae 2 : 381-384 NELson, G. A. & Hawn, E. J. 1971. Phytopathology 61 : 1097-1098 VIGLIERCHO, D. R. 1971. Nematologica 17 : 386-392 Hes.inG, J.J. 1970. N.A.A.S.q. Rev. 90 : 83-89 Grusicic, G. 1971. Zast. Bilja 22 : 159-171 WHITEHEAD, A. G. & Tite, D. J. 1972. Pl. Path. 21 : 89-92 CayroL, J.C. 1970. Annis. Zool.-Ecol. anim. 2 : 327-337 WILLIAMS, W. M. 1972. N.Z. Jl. agric. Res. 15 : 363-370 COMMENT ON THE REQUESTED CONFIRMATION OF DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES FOR DONACILLA DE BLAINVILLE, 1819 AND AMPHIDESMA LAMARCK, 1818 (BIVALVIA). Z.N.(S.) 1959 (See volume 28, pages 121-123 and volume 29, page 193) By R. V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1. Amphidesma Lamarck, 1818 is an available name for the nominal genus with 16 included nominal species. Among these sixteen, were Amphidesma variegata Lamarck, 1818 which was the first of the species named and Amphidesma donacilla Lamarck, 1818. 2. Donacilla De Blainville, 1819, must on internal evidence be treated as a replacement name for Amphidesma Lamarck, 1818 and, therefore, the type-species of One must be the type-species of the other. 3. The first valid designation of a type-species for Amphidesma was made by J. G. Children, 1823 who designated Amphidesma variegata Lamarck, 1818, the type- species. 4. The valid name for this species is Semele purpurascens (Gmelin, [1791]) re- garded as a species of Semele (sensu stricto) by Boss (1972, Johnsonia 5 (49) : 15). Semele Schumacher, 1817 is therefore the valid senior synonym of both Amphidesma and Donacilla. 5. It appears on the evidence presented by Dr. Beu that it is desirable to regard Donacilla Philippi, 1836 as the valid name for the species known as Mactra cornea Poli, 1795. This can only be done if Donacilla De Blainville, 1819 is suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority and for those of the Law of Homonymy. Dona- cilla is not available from its citations by Ferussac, 1822 and Dubois, 1824 because in both cases the name was mentioned only in synonymy and has never been adopted as a valid name from either of those citations. 6. The proposals by Dr. Beu and Dr. Rooij-Schuiling can therefore be presented in the following way: The Commission is requested to: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Donacilla De Blainville, 1819 for the purposes for the Law of Priority and for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Semele Schumacher, 1817 (gender: feminine), type-species by monotypy Semele reticulata Schumacher, 1817 (= Tellina reticulata “‘Linnaeus” Spengler, 1798, non Linnaeus = Tellina proficua Pulteney, 1799) (b) Donacilla Philippi, 1836 (gender: feminine), type-species by original designation Donacilla lamarcki (= Mactra cornea Poli, 1795) Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) Mesodesma Deshayes, 1832 (gender: neuter), type-species (by subsequent designation of Anton, 1839) Mesodesma donacium Deshayes, 1832 = Mactra donacia Lamarck, 1818; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the following names: (i) proficua Pulteney, 1799 as published in the binomen Tellina proficua (the senior synonym of Semele reticulata Schumacher, 1817, type-species of Semele Schumacher, 1817); (ii) cornea Poli, 1795 (the senior synonym of Donacilla lamarcki, type-species of Donacilla Philippi) as published in the binomen Mactra cornea; (iii) donacia Lamarck, 1818, as published in the binomen Mactra donacia; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology: (a) his ae De Blainville, 1819 as suppressed under the plenary powers in 1) above; (b) Amphidesma Lamarck, 1818, type-species by subsequent designation by Children, 1823, Amphidesma variegata Lamarck, 1818. COMMENT ON PALAEOFAVOSITES TWENHOFEL, 1914 (ANTHOZOA, TABULATA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1961 (See volume 28, pages 158-160) By Klemens Oekentorp (Geol.-Paldont. Inst. u. Museum, 44 Miinster/Westf., Glevenbecker Weg 61) The following is a list of references in which the name Palaeofavosites Twenhofel, 1914 has been used in recent years. The list is in accordance with Article 79(b) of the Code which requires evidence that the name that is threatened has been used by at least five different authors in at least ten different publications in the last fifty years. I had no difficulty in providing a list of fifty-two references and more can be found in Fliigel, H. W. 1970. Bibliographie der paldozoischen Anthozoa (Rugosa, Hetero- corallia, Tabulata, Heliolitida, Trachypsammiacea) I. Bibliographie. II. Index zur Bibliographie., Wien. Palaeofavosites is cited in part IL on page 193. Those papers in which new species of the genus Palaeofavosites are cited are marked by an asterisk. CITATIONS *CERNYSEV, B. B. 1937. Silurijskie i devonskie Tabulata Mongolii i Tuvy. Trudy mongol’. Kom. 6 (30) : 1-31 *POULSEN, C. 1941. The Silurian faunas of North Greenland. 2. The fauna of the Offley Island Formation. Part 1. Coelenterata. Meddr Gronland 72 (2) : 27 pp. *SoKoLov, B. S. 1950. Silurijskie korally zapada Sibirskoj platformy. Vop. Paleont. 1 : 211-242 *—— 1951. Tabuljaty paleozoja Evropejskoj CGasti SSSR. Part 1. Ordovik Zapadnogo Urala i Pribaltiki. Trudy vses. neft. nauchnoissled. geol.-razv. Inst. (Nov. Ser.) 48 : 1-132 *—_ 1951. Tabuljaty paleozoja Evropejskoj ¢asti SSSR. Part 2. Silur Pribaltiki. (Favozitidy llandoverskogo jarusa). Trudy vses. neft. nauchno-issled. geol.-ravz. Inst. (Nov. Ser.) 52 : 1-124 . 1952. Tabuljaty paleozoja Evropejskoj éasti SSSR. Part 3. Silur Pribaltiki. (Favozitidy venlokskogo i ludlovskogo jarusa). Trudy vses. neft. nauchno- issled. geol.-razv. Inst. (Nov. Ser.) 58 : 1-185 *Ivanov, A. N. & MyaGckova, E. J. 1955. Fauna ordovika zapadnogo sklona srednego Urala. Trudy gorno-geol. Inst. ural’. Fil. 23 : 9-75 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 *STEARN, C. W. 1956. Stratigraphy and paleontology of the Interlake group and Stonewall formation of southern Manitoba. Mem. geol. Survey Brch Canada 281 : 152 pp. *KLAAMANN, E. R. 1962. Rasprostranenie ordovikskich i silurijskich tabuljat ree (s opisaniem nekotorych novych vidov). Geoloogia Inst. Uurim 10: 149-172 *FLower, R. H. 1961. Montoya and related colonial corals. Mem. Inst. Min. Mexico Bureau Min. 7 : 97 pp. *Yu, C. M. 1956. Some silurian corals from the Chiuchiian Basin, western Kansu. Acta palaeont. Sin. 4 : 599-620. In Chinese, with English summary *STASINSKA, A. 1967. Tabulata from Norway, Sweden and from the Erratic Boulders of Poland. Palaeont. pol. 18 : 9-112 OEKENTORP, K. & ScHOouPPE, A. 1969. Kritische Betrachtungen iiber die Anord- nung der Poren bei Palaeofavosites Twenhofel, 1914. Neues Jb. Geol. Paldont. Abh. 133 : 89-100 Hit, D. & Stumm, E. C. 1956: Tabulata: F444-F477. In: Moore, R. C. (Ed) Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology. Part F. Coelenterata. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press PROPONENT’S COMMENT ON EFFECT OF ARTICLE 29(d) ON THE APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF CERTAIN NAMES ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1965 (See volume 29, pages 26-27) By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, clo U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) 1. In the two years that have elapsed since the submission of my application for correction of certain names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, the new Article 29(d) was added to the Code at the X VIIth International Congress of Zoology held at Monaco in September 1972. My application was published in May 1972 and comment on it was made by Dr. Theresa Clay in December 1972 (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 29 : 199). Article 29(d) appeared in somewhat different form in the agenda for the Monaco meeting in August 1972 (ibid.: 99) and was acted upon one month later (ibid.: 189). 2. Aside from any reservations I may have as to the degree to which the new Article 29(d) represents the opinion of the majority of zoologists, it was evidently adopted in a regular manner and is now a part of the Code. It is therefore now necessary that an incorrectly formed family-group name proposed before 1961 be proved to be not in general use before it may be corrected. It seems highly doubtful to me that this procedure will lead to greater stability in nomenclature than the follow- ing of a rule of general application, especially one dealing with Latin grammar as does Article 29, which is the codification of a practice in effect virtually since the inception of the Linnaean system. 3. Inresponse to the comment by Theresa Clay, I would like to point out that even if the “‘majority of zoologists using names are totally ignorant of classical grammar” they still must follow its rules when proposing new names, even those in the family group. If enough knowledge of classical grammar is needed to follow the rules in proposing new names, certainly no more such knowledge is needed to make old names conform to the same rules. We now must determine whether or not both of the names Trinotonidae and Gyropidae are in sufficient general use to remain un- corrected. There could be a considerable amount of discussion and at least a sizeable amount of work to determine accurately and objectively just how general, for example, is the use of Pyralididae as against Pyralidae. It should also be noted that Mayr’s Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature wording of the proposal for the new Article in the agenda included the word “‘uni- versal” instead of “‘general’’, a word of distinctly different meaning. The question still remains whether the many family-group names, at least in insects, that have been corrected in conformance with Article 29 should not now revert to their former “‘gen- eral use”. At least the problem of determining how general has become the use of the corrected forms is not slight. 4. In view of the fact that the subject names were contrary to the rules in force at the time they were added to the Official List, I believe that my proposal should stand as it is, that is, as a proposal to place the subject names on the same footing as those others which were placed on it before the adoption of Article 29(d). COMMENT ON PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS PTERODACTYLUS CRASSIPES MEYER, 1857 AND COUNTER-PROPOSAL TO RECOGNIZE ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICA MEYER, 1861, AND TO FIX ITS TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 1977 By Eugene Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A., Chairman, Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress) In a worthy effort to ensure the continuing validity of the well-known Archaeopteryx lithographica Meyer, 1861 for the earliest recognized fossil remains of a bird (Jurassic), Dr. J. H. Ostrom has applied for the complete suppression of an earlier unused name, previously (1857) proposed by Meyer for fossil remnants from the same Solenhofen limestone beds, in the belief that they represented a flying reptile. Dr. Ostrom states his conviction that both fossil remains relate to the same bird species (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 29 : 30-31), and he is concerned that crassipes has priority. We support the applicant’s aim to preserve Archaeopteryx lithographica, one of the most famous names in zoology and paleontology, and already on the Official List; but we suggest that to accomplish this, it is unnecessary totally to suppress the name crassipes. 2. As the type material of Pterodactylus crassipes consists, according to Dr. Ostrom, only of fragmentary skeletal remains, it is possible that, even if of a bird, it may represent a species different from A. lithographica; it is therefore desirable to preserve the available name. In saying this we are not questioning Dr. Ostrom’s conclusion of identity (as to which we have no competence), but are pointing out a factual possibility, which involves a taxonomic issue, not within the proper sphere of the Commission. To protect /ithographica does not require the complete suppression of crassipes. A. lithographica is already on the Official List, and the Commission may now rule (if necessary by exercise of the Plenary Powers) that name be applied as the valid name of the species, regardless of the applicability and priority of crassipes, or any other name that may be unearthed. This would leave crassipes available if considered applicable to a different species. 3. Dr. Ostrom’s application also discusses the contention, which has been made by a few zoologists, that Meyer’s name Archaeopteryx lithographica was applied only to an unidentifiable single feather imprint, and not to the oft-pictured fossil skeleton, which has long been in the British Museum (Natural History) and for which the name has been used almost universally. To end any further nomenclatural question, we ask that the Commission rule that the type-specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica Meyer, 1861, is the animal, considered a Jurassic bird, whose fossil skeletal remains in Solenhofen limestone have long been in the British Museum. It is therefore requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 (1) exercise its Plenary Powers to rule: (a) that the name Prerodactylus crassipes Meyer, 1857 is not to be given priority over the name Archaeopteryx lithographica Meyer, 1861, by any zoologist who believes that those names apply to the same species- group taxon; (b) that the type-specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica Meyer, 1861, is the species whose fossil skeletal remains, imbedded in Solenhofen lime- stone, Kimmeridgian, are in the British Museum (Natural History), bearing catalogue No. 37001. COMMENT ON SCHISTODERA COBB, 1920 (NEMATODA: ENOPLIDA), A REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION; OX YSTOMINA FILIPJEV, 1921 PROPOSED FOR THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 2031 (See volume 30, pages 102-103) By R. V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The generic name Oxystomina first appears in the legend on Plate 2 of Filipjev’s two part presentation. The plates are bound after the first 22 sheets of Part 1, 1918 and before sheets 23-39 of Part 2, 1921. We are grateful to Dr. Bruce E. Hopper of the Plant Protection Division, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada, for bringing this fact to our attention. Bound in front of the title page is a note printed in Russian, which translates as: “After the binding, the title page and the foreword of the first part have been discarded, the rest follows as: 1. Title page, foreword and the table of contents (from part I) 2. Sheets 1-22 (from part I) 3. Sheets 23-39 (from part I) 4. Plates 1-11 (from part I)”. Then, on page iv of the foreword is a list of the publication dates of the separate sheets. This is translated as follows: 1 — April 1916 19 — September 1917 2- 4 — May 1916 20-22 — March 1918 5— 9 — September 1916 23-24 — March 1918 10-11 — January 1917 25-26 — July 1918 12-13 — April 1917 27 — December 1918 14 — February 1917 28-32 — October 1921 15-17 — April 1917 33-39 — December 1921 18 — February 1918 This list is followed by this sentence: “The first part (sheets 1-22) appeared in November 1918, the second is appearing now”. (This foreword was written by I. N. Filipjev and is dated Petrograd, 1 December 1921). Thus, the date of publication of Oxystomina is 1918 and not 1921 as given in the application, and Oxystomina is an available name from 1918. (Article 12; 16(a) (vii)). On plate 2, Oxystomina clavicauda n.sp. and Oxystomina filiformis n.sp. are both named and figured and therefore, one of these two species should be designated as the type-species for Oxystomina (Article 69(a)). In order that Oxystoma elongatum ery 1874, may be designated as the type-species, the plenary powers must be invoked. Therefore the proposals put forward by W. D. Hope and D. G. Murphy are here amended and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Oxystomina Filipjev, 1918, made prior to the requested Ruling and, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature having done so, to designate Oxystoma elongatum Biitschli, 1874, to be the type-species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Oxystomina Filipjev, 1918 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Oxystoma elong- gatum 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 elongatum (type-species of Oxystomina Filipjev, 1918) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR CERITHIUM BRUGUIERE [1789]. Z.N.(S.) 2032 By Walter O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, N.Z.) Houbrick (1973, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 30 : 104-107) requested the Commission to suppress previous type-species designation for Cerithium Bruguiére [1789] and to designate C. adansonii Bruguiére, 1792, as the type-species of Cerithium. The type-species of Cerithium has been a source of confusion for many years and Dr. Houbrick’s petition for the designation of C. adansonii as the type-species of Cerithium will solve taxonomic problems and is therefore strongly supported. How- ever, is Montfort’s type designation (1810, Conch. Syst., 2: 511) of C. virgatum Montfort, 1810, as the type-species of Cerithium Bruguiére [1789] really valid? Bruguiére (1792, Encycl. méth. vers, 1 : 467-501) does not actually cite a C. virgatum by name, either as a valid species or as a synonym. While all of Bruguiére’s species subsequently referred to the genus Cerithium are all equally eligible for type selection, C. virgatum was not among these originally included species (Art. 69(a)(i) of the Code). There may have been a type designation by Montfort by inference due to the inclusion of Murex vertagus Linnaeus, in the synonymy of Cerithium virgatum Montfort, but the Code does not provide for this kind of type-species designation. Schumacher (1817, Essai nouy. syst., pp. 223, 227) did not select any type-species at all. On p. 223 he lists Cerithium which he properly credits to Bruguiére and not Lamarck, and on the following page includes in the genus-group the species C. palustre, C. nodulosum and C. aluco without selecting a type-species. The second group referred to by Dr. Houbrick is the genus Vertagus Schumacher, 1817 (non Link, 1807) which appeared on p. 227 and includes the species V. vulgaris and V. granularis, without a formal designation of a type-species. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO PLACE LEUCOSPIS GIGAS FABRICIUS, 1793 ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 2038 By B. D. Burks (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, clo U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) Iam in favour of the action to place Leucospis gigas Fabricius, 1793, on the Official List. The specific name should be preserved, because it is widely used in zoological literature in the fields of biology, taxonomy, and faunistics. Dalla Torre, Catalogus Hymenopterorum volume 5, 1898, includes 26 references to papers about gigas. In addition, the literature files in the U.S. National Museum include references to 29 papers on gigas that were published after 1898. This total does not include papers that are essentially faunal lists. Examples of two of the latter are Breland, 1940, Faune de la France V1, Hyménoptéres, where he states (in French) ‘‘Leucospis F..... 5 species in France, the most common being L. gigas” or Boucéek, 1957, Klic Zvireny CSR, II, p. 208, where he states (in Czech) that gigas was taken “‘near Bratislava”. I have never been in favour of the strict application of the rule of priority when it would entail the suppression of a name that has been widely used in non-taxonomic literature. Leucospis gigas is one such. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 OPINION 1019 BYRSOCRYPTA HALIDAY, 1838 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, APHIDIDAE): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Byrsocrypta Haliday, 1838, 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: (a) Pemphigus Hartig, 1839 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation by Fitch, 1855, Aphis bursaria Linnaeus, 1758, with the Name Number 1999; (b) Tetraneura Hartig, 1841 (gender: feminine), type-species by subsequent monotypy, Aphis ulmi Linnaeus, 1758, with the Name Number 2000. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) bursaria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Aphis bursaria (type-species of Pemphigus Hartig, 1839) (Name No. 2527); (b) ulmi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Aphis ulmi (type- species of Tetraneura Hartig, 1841) (Name No. 2528). (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Byrsocrypta Haliday, 1838 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 2047); (b) Brysocrypta Westwood, 1840 (an incorrect spelling for Byrsocrypta Haliday, 1838) (Name No. 2048). (5) The following family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number specified: PEMPHIGINI (emendation of PEMPHIGIDEN Koch, 1837) (type-genus Pemphigus Hartig, 1839) (Name No. 476). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 431) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. F. C. Hottes in July 1949. After considerable discussion and amendment the application was rewritten with the help of Dr. V. F. Eastop and resubmitted in April 1962. It was sent to the printer on 21 May 1962 and published on 26 April 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 201-203. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. The application was supported by Dr. Hille Ris Lambers and Dr. Miriam A. Palmer. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 December 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)26 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20: 203. At the close of the pre- scribed voting period on 1 March 1965 the state of voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: China, Boschma, Mayr, Simpson, Bonnet, do Amaral, Lemche, Riley, Uchida, Miller, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Vokes, Tortonese, Evans, Holthuis, Ride, Brinck, Binder, Kraus, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado. Negative votes—none (0). Voting papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. Doctors Borchsenius and Stoll returned late affirmative votes. Dr. C. W. Sabrosky did not vote but returned his voting paper with the following statement requesting re-consideration of the case. Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (19.i.1965): “I believe that this case needs reconsider- ation. In my opinion, Pemphigus is not threatened. Iam informed that while Tetraneura has been used more than Byrsocrypta, there has been some use of the latter, and suspension may or may not be justified for that alone. One essential point is the determination of the species eligible for selection as type of Byrsocrypta. Proper interpretation of Haliday’s paper is critical here. Haliday’s article, to quote the full title, deals with ‘“‘New British Insects indicated in Mr. Curtis’s Guide’, and is a continuation of pp. 112-121 in the October 1838 issue of the same journal. A short introductory paragraph (p. 112) states that the references are to the genera and species as numbered in the second edition of that Guide (Curtis’s well known “A Guide to an Arrangement of British Insects’, second edition, London, 1837), and where the Appendix is referred to, the number of the Column is given (the work consists of two num- bered columns per unnumbered page). The Guide, merely a list of names in taxonomic order, consists of intermingled manuscript names and names already published, with authors stated. Haliday’s article furnishes descriptions for many of the manuscript names. One must therefore go back to Curtis’s Guide for understanding the often brief references in Haliday. “The statement quoted by Hottes and Eastop appears on p. 190 as the closing part of an “Obs. [ervation]’’ (i.e., a note) under “Eriosoma pallida C.App. 279”. In Curtis’s Guide, Appendix (called “Addenda” in the list itself), column 279, appears the following: 10462 ADELGES 1. Laricis 2. Ulmigallarum Schr. 3. pallidus “In Curtis’s format, 1046 signified a subdivision of genus 1046, which was Eriosoma in column 218 of the main body of the work. The first species, laricis, is stated by Haliday (1838: 190) to be /aricis Vallot; it does not concern the present problem. The second species, u/migallarum, is clearly credited to Schrank, though Schrank wrote it gallarum ulmi and credited it to De Geer. The third species was described and made available by Haliday (1838: 189) as Eriosoma pallida. WHaliday’s article clearly listed two nominal species, pallida Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 Haliday and u/migallarum Schrank, as species inhabiting “‘closed follicles’ and therefore associated with his new genus Byrsocrypta. It follows that these two species are the originally included nominal species eligible for type selection. This was recognized by Fitch (1855) in the footnote partially cited by Hottes and Eastop: ‘Mr. Haliday first proposed the genus Byrsocrypta... placing under this genus the Aphis Ulmi of Geoffroy, and a new species which he names pallida.’ “Tt is clear that Byrsocrypta does not include Aphis bursaria Linnaeus, and thus does not threaten Pemphigus. The main purpose of the application is thus unnecessary. “Tt is not so clear which other generic name is threatened by Byrsocrypta. Strictly speaking, Fitch does not mention the originally included nominal species u/migallarum Schrank (which is actually gallarum ulmi De Geer), though it is clear what species he is discussing, and it is clear through the accepted synonymies of the works in question that Schrank referred to De Geer, who referred to Aphis ulmi Geoffroy, which is Aphis ulmi Linnaeus. “Tf Fitch is construed not to have designated the type of Byrsocrypta then Byrsocrypta and Tetraneura have the same type-species, as Fitch recognized (“Consequently the name Byrsocrypta must be retained for the genus which has Ulmi for its type, namely the Tetraneura of Hartig’’). “Tf Fitch is construed not to have fixed the type, then the oldest type desig- nation for Byrsocrypta appears to be that of Tullgren (1909), who designated Eriosoma pallida Haliday. Byrsocrypta would then be the senior synonym of the relatively recent name Kaltenbachiella Schouteden (1906). It may be noted that Tullgren adopted the name Byrsocrypta, applying it as a subgenus of Tetraneura. “T note in passing that the reference given for Fitch (1855) is incorrect. The page 7 footnote refers to a separate edition of this First New York Report by Fitch, the separate being published in 1856. In the Transactions, vol. 14, his Report occupies pp. 705-880. I believe the page of the footnote to be 711, but I do not have the original work readily available to check this’’. Dr. Eastop replied: “I should have thought that Sabrosky’s comments strengthened the grounds for the suppression of Byrsocrypta. There has never been any doubt about the application of the generic names Pemphigus, Tetra- neura, Colopha, and Kaltenbachiella. Byrsocrypta has been used for the first of these and Sabrosky has suggested that it might be the correct name for Kaltenbachiella. While this may well be true, it seems more desirable to me to suppress Byrsocrypta and to retain the names which have been used consistently”’. The following note is from the Secretary, Mr. R. V. Melville: “It appears that Dr. Sabrosky’s comment provides additional information and that his con- clusion—that Pemphigus is not threatened by Byrsocrypta—is indeed the correct one. Nevertheless, Dr. Eastop shows that Byrsocrypta has been used with various meanings and that its continued validity would constitute a threat to the stability of nomenclature. Since the decision of the Commission has confirmed the stability of Pemphigus, and since Dr. Sabrosky’s scholarly contribution does not affect the principles and objectives of the application, it has been decided not to re-open the case”’. B 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 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: Pemphigus Hartig, 1839, Jahresber. Fortschr. Forstwiss.-Naturk im Jahre 1836 u. 1837 1 (4) : 645 Brysocrypta Westwood, 1840 (an incorrect spelling for Byrsocrypta Haliday, 1838), Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. London., Synopsis: 118 Byrsocrypta Haliday, 1838, Ann. nat. Hist. 2 (9): 190 bursaria, Aphis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 453 PEMPHIGINI (emendation of PEMPHIGIDEN) Koch, 1857, Die Pflanzenlaiise Aphiden. Niirnberg: viii ulmi, Aphis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 451 Tetraneura Hartig, 1841, Z. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 366 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)26 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. 1019. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 8 March 1974 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 OPINION 1020 PLEUROACANTHITES CANAVARI, 1883 (CEPHALOPODA, LYTOCERATINA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations for the type-species of the nominal genus Pleuroacanthites Canavari, 1883, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Ammonites biformis J. de C. Sowerby, 1831 is hereby designated to be the type of that genus. (2) The entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for Pleuro- acanthites, Name Number 1381 shall now indicate that the type-species Ammoni- tes biformis J. de C. Sowerby was designated by the plenary powers. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1940) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. M. K. Howarth in October 1970. Dr. Howarth’s application was sent to the printer on 10 March 1971 and was published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 62-63. 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 proposals were supported by Professor D. T. Donovan. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 November 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)11 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 63. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 28 February 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Vokes, Tortonese, Willink, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, Eisenmann, Habe, Binder, Alvarado, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Heppell, Nye, Bernardi, Ride, Kraus. Negative votes—none (0). On Leave of Absence—one (1): Simpson. Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Brinck, Munroe, Starobogatov. Dr. Dupuis abstained from voting and Doctors Erben and Corliss returned late affirmative votes. In returning his voting paper Dr. Dupuis made the following comment (30.xi.1973): “‘Je refuse de voter, l’auteur de la proposition n’ayant pas précisé le contenu possible des Lytoceras armati [les Lytoceras armés]; il déclare que L. armati n’est pas un nom zoologique correctement formé; en fait ce n’est pas du tout un nom zoologique, mais un nom de genre avec un determinatif pluriel— Il faudrait réexaminer tout cela’. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference for the type-species of Pleuroacanthites Canavari, 1883: biformis, Ammonites, J. de C. Sowerby, 1831, in De la Beche, Geol. Man.: 319. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)11 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1020. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 March 1974 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 OPINION 1021 CLINUS ACULEATUS REINHARDT, 1837 (PISCES, BLENNIOIDED;: SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name aculeatus Reinhardt, 1837, as published in the binomen Clinus aculeatus, is hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name maculatus Fries, 1838, as published in the binomen Clinus maculatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2529. (3) The specific name aculeatus Reinhardt, 1837, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 994. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1941) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. J. G. Nielsen in October 1970. Dr. Nielsen’s application was sent to the printer on 18 March 1971 and was published on 10 August 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 64. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to one specialist serial. The application was supported by the Nomenclature Com- mittee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists per Dr. B. B. Collette (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 110). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 November 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)12 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 64. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 28 February 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—sixteen (16), received in the following order: Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Vokes, Tortonese, Willink, Jaczewski, Melville, Eisenmann, Habe, Binder, Alvarado, Bayer, Heppell, Ride, Kraus. Negative votes—four (4): Dupuis, Rohdendorf, Nye, Bernardi. On leave of absence—one (1): Simpson. Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Brinck, Munroe, Starobogatov. Commissioners Erben and Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. Com- missioner Sabrosky abstained from voting. In returning their voting papers the following comments were made by Commissioners: Dr. C. Dupuis (30.11.1973): “Simple respect de la priorité’’. Prof. E. Mayr (3.xii.1973): “In the Opinion to be issued it should be stated that this decision conforms to Article 23b (or its post-Monaco equivalent)”. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature This application had been made to the Commission before the XVIIth International Congress on Zoology held at Monaco in September 1972. In their comment the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (Bull. 29 : 110) provide four references in which the name maculatus has been used in the last fifty years. In accordance with Article 79(b) the following six references are listed in which the name maculatus was used: DuNcKER, G. & Mour, E. W. 1929. In: Grimpe, G. & WAGLER, E. Die Tierwelt der Nord- und Ostsee 12 (12): XIIg Leipzig, 97-98 SCHNAKENBECK, W. 1934. Jn: Joupin, L. [Ed.] Faune ichthyol. Atlant. N. Copenhagen: pl. 316 JENSEN, A. S. 1944. Spolia zool. Mus. haun. 4 : 31-32 SAEMUNDSSON, B. 1949. Marine Pisces. Zoology of Iceland, 4 (72): 36, 136 ANDRIASHEV, A. P. 1954. Keys to the Fauna of the U.S.S.R., Zool. Inst., Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., Moskwa-Leningrad No. 53: 248-250 WHEELER, A. 1969. The Fishes of the British Isles and North-West Europe, Macmillan, London: 444 Prof. B. B. Rohdendorf (11.ii.1974): “I vote against suppression action for the specific name aculeatus Reinhardt, 1837 as it is contrary to the Law of Priority”. Dr. I. W. B. Nye (27.ii.1974): ““Although I would support the nomenclatural proposal to place Clinus maculatus on the Official List, thereby giving it pre- cedence over any other name for the species; I am against the proposal to place its subjective synonym on the Official Index, thereby rejecting it for ever. To ask the Commission to do so is not only unnecessary but is seeking an endorse- ment of a subjective synonymy when no evidence has been provided on which to base a judgement’’. Prof. G. Bernardi (18.ii.1974): “Comme de nombreux entomologistes je suis opposé a la “régle des 50 ans” et je considére, en ce qui concerne les noms du groupe-espéce, qu’une erreur ne doit pas étre acceptée méme si elle est de longue durée”’. 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: aculeatus, Clinus, Reinhardt, 1837, Ichthyologiske Bidrag til den gronlandske Fauna. Ké6benhavn.: 1-122 maculatus, Clinus, Fries, 1838, K. svenska Vetensk Akad. Handl. 1837 : 51 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)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. 1021. R. V. MELVILLE, Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London, 14 March 1974 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 OPINION 1022 CTENODONTA ELONGATA SALTER, 1873 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name elongata Salter, 1873 as published in the binomen Ctenodonta elongata is hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) menapiensis Hicks, 1873, as published in the binomen Ctenodonta menapiensis (Name No. 2530); (b) cambriensis Hicks, 1873 as published in the binomen Ctenodonta cam- briensis (Name No. 2531). (3) 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) elongata Salter, 1873, as published in the binomen Ctenodonta elongata (Name No. 995); (b) rotunda Salter, 1873, as published in the binomen Ctenodonta rotunda (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 996); (c) rotunda Hicks, 1873, as published in the binomen Ctenodonta rotunda (unavailable under Article 11(d)) (Name No. 997). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1945) The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. R. M. Carter on 18 November 1970. The application was sent to the printer on 8 July 1971 and was published on 8 December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 102-103. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two palaeontological serials. The application was supported by John Pojeta, Jr. and a comment by Dr. Lemche was published in Bull. 29 : 64. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 November 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)13 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 103 and as modified by those in Bull. 29 : 64. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 28 February 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Vokes, Tortonese, Willink, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, Eisenmann, Habe, Binder, Alvarado, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Nye, Bernardi, Ride, Kraus. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Negative votes—none (0). Abstentions—one (1): Heppell. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Simpson. Voting papers not returned—four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Starobogatov, Dupuis. Dr. John Corliss returned a late affirmative vote and in returning his Voting Paper after the closing date Prof. Dr. Erben did not indicate for or against the proposals but stated that he was in agreement with Dr. Lemche. In returning his voting paper Mr. David Heppell made the following comment (26.11.1974): “I vote for proposals (1) and (3)(a), (b), (c) as modified by Dr. Lemche, but against his proposals (2)(a), (b) as I believe this is a case where possible reidentification or synonymy might be prejudiced by the addition of the current names to the Official List. This action seems to be rendered un- necessary by the suppression of the names which threatened those in present DSciee ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in this Opinion: cambriensis, Ctenodonta, Hicks, 1873, Q. JI geol. Soc. Lond. 29 : 47 elongata, Ctenodonta, Salter, 1873, A catalogue of the Cambrian and Silurian fossils contained in the Geological Museum of Cambridge, Cambridge: 24 menapiensis, Ctenodonta, Hicks, 1873, Q. JI geol. Soc. Lond. 29 : 47 rotunda, Ctenodonta Hicks, 1873, Q. JI geol. Soc. Lond. 29 : 47 rotunda, Ctenodonta Salter, 1873, A catalogue of the Cambrian and Silurian fossils contained in the Geological Museum of Cambridge, Cambridge: 24 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)13 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1022. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 March 1974 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 OPINION 1023 CASSIDAE (MOLLUSCA) AND CASSIDINAE (INSECTA): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers, it is hereby ruled that the stem of the generic name Cassis Scopoli, 1777, for the purposes of Article 29 is CAss-. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) CASSIDAE (an emendation under the plenary powers of CASSIDITES) Latreille, 1825 (type-genus Cassis Scopoli, 1777) (Name No. 477); (b) CASSIDINAE (correction of CASSIDIADAE) Stephens, 1831 (type-genus Cassida Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 478). (3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Cassis Scopoli, 1777 (gender: feminine), type-species by subsequent designation by Montfort, 1810, Buccinum cornutum Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 2001); (b) Cassida Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type-species by subsequent designation by Spaeth, 1914, Cassida nebulosa Linnaeus, 1758. (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) cornutum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Buccinum cornutum (type-species of Cassis Scopoli, 1777) (Name No. 2532); (b) nebulosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cassida nebulosa, (type-species of Cassida Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 2533). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1938) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. A. G. Beu in January 1971. The application was sent to the printer on 10 March 1971 and was published on 10 August 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 56-58. 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 four specialist serials. The application was supported by Dr. H. A. Rehder (Bull. 29 : 2; 30: 3) and Dr. W. O. Cernohorsky (Bull. 29 : 109). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 November 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)9 either for or against the proposals as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 57-58 and modified in Bull. 29 : 109 and in Bull. 30:3. At the close of the voting period on 28 February 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Vokes, Tortonese, Willink, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Eisenmann, Habe, Binder, Alvarado, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Heppell, Nye, Bernardi, Ride, Kraus. Negative votes—none (0). Abstentions—one (1): Dupuis. On Leave of Absence—one (1): Simpson. Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Brinck, Munroe, Starobogatov. Drs. Erben and Corliss returned late affirmative votes, although Prof. Dr. Erben’s affirmative vote was provisional (see his comment). The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. C. Dupuis (30.xi.1973): “Je refuse de voter sur les deux cas simultané- ment”. Dr. H. Lemche (2.xii.1973): “As the above references are partly contra- dictory, [those pertaining to the proposals], I might explain that I am voting in favour of CASSIDAE, CASSIDINAE, HARPETIDAE and HARPIDAE’’. Prof. Dr. H. K. Erben (27.ii.1974): “I vote for the proposals subject to the validation of ““HARPEDIDAE”’ for the trilobite family. Whittington’s selection of “HARPIDAE”’ for the trilobite family was un- fortunate because the name “HARPEDIDAE” has been used quite commonly by palaeontologists (and very frequently still is). This seems to deserve con- sideration”’. The issue concerning the name of the family-group taxon of which Harpes Goldfuss, 1839 is the type-genus is therefore not yet resolved. The Ruling on that matter has therefore been deferred for further investigation. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Cassida Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 362 CASSIDAE Latreille, 1825, Fam. Régn. Anim.: 194 CASSIDINAE Stephens, 1831, J//. Brit. Ent., Mand. 4 : 364-365 Cassis Scopoli, 1777, Introd. Hist. nat.: 393 cornutum, Buccinum, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 735 nebulosa, Cassida, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 363 The following are the original references for the designation of type-species for genera concerned in the present Ruling: For Cassida Linnaeus, 1758: Spaeth, 1914, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 64 : [140] For Cassis Scopoli, 1777: Montfort, 1810, Conchyl. syst. 2 : 599 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)9 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper concerning the homonymy between the family-group names based on the generic names Cassida (Insecta) and Cassis (Mollusca) has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129 being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1023. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 March 1974 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1024 EPIRHEXIS COPE, 1866 (AMPHIBIA: SALIENTIA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Epirhexis Cope, 1866, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Syrrhophus Cope, 1878 (gender: masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Syrrhophus marnockii Cope, 1878, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2003. (3) The specific name marnockii Cope, 1878, as published in the binomen Syrrhophus marnockii (type-species of Syrrhophus Cope, 1878) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2534. (4) The generic name Epirhexis Cope, 1866, 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 2049. (5) The specific name /atodactylus Taylor, 1940, as published in the binomen Syrrhophus latodactylus, is not to be used in preference to the specific name longipes Baird, 1859, as published in the binomen Batrachyla longipes, by those zoologists who consider the two names apply to a single taxon at specific or subspecific level in the species-group. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1824) The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by John D. Lynch in September 1967. The application was sent to the printer on 4 October 1967 and was published on 7 December 1967 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 313-315. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two specialist serials. The application was supported by Hobart M. Smith (Bull. 25 : 72) and by Thomas H. Fritts (Bull. 25:72). The pro- posals were opposed by Dr. E. Raymond Hall and a majority of the Nomen- clature Committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 August 1969 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (69)45. This voting paper con- sisted of two parts: Part 1, for or against the suppression under the plenary powers of Epirhexis Cope, 1866 as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 314-315 and Part 2, on the suppression under the plenary powers of Batrachyla longipes Baird, 1859, as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl.25: 72. At the close of the voting period on 28 November 1969 the state of the voting was as follows: Part One. Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Melville, Mayr, Vokes, do Amaral, Obruchev, Eisenmann, Jaczewski, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131 Tortonese, Brinck, Mertens, Bonnet, Evans, Binder, Ride, Forest, Alvarado, Kraus. Negative votes—three (3): Simpson, Starobogatov, Sabrosky. Abstentions—one (1): Lemche. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. Part Two. Affirmative votes—fourteen (14), received in the following order: China, Vokes, Obruchev, Eisenmann, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Mertens, Bonnet, Evans, Binder, Ride, Forest, Alvarado, Kraus. Negative votes—eight (8): Holthuis, Melville, Mayr, do Amaral, Simpson, Starobogatov, Brinck, Sabrosky. Abstentions—one (1): Lemche. Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Munroe. The vote in Part 2, being less than a two-thirds majority in favour of the proposition, amounts to a refusal to use the plenary powers to suppress the specific name Jongipes Baird, 1859, as published in the binomen Batrachyla longipes. Article 79(a) (iii) of the International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature requires in the event of such a refusal, that the Opinion is to specify the name to be used and the action to be taken. Paragraph (5) of the above Ruling is drafted so as to satisfy that provision. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their voting papers: R. V. Melville (8.ix.1969): “I do not think the time is ripe for any action on Batrachyla longipes. The objections to the proposals should have been cir- culated to the Commission’. G. G. Simpson (16.ix.1969): ““The complex arguments depend to a consider- able extent on moot zoological, non-nomenclatural factors, and the professional group most concerned (American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists) opposes the proposals”’. H. Lemche (received on 10.x.1969): ““We cannot vote on a case on which opposition has been presented, without knowing the reasons for it—even in a case of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists”’. E. Eisenmann (17.x.1969): “I should prefer an alternative position: that Epirhexis should in no event have priority over Syrrhophus nor longipes over latodactylus, but that if Epirhexis longipes (Baird) should prove identifiable as a different genus and otherwise undescribed species those names should be applied to it.” 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: Epirhexis Cope, 1866, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. (2) 6 : 96 marnockii, Syrrhophus, Cope, 1878, Am. Nat. 12 : 253 Syrrhophus Cope, 1878, Am. Nat. 12 : 253 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (69)45 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. 1024. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 March 1974 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133 OPINION 1025 SALAMANDRA TIGRINA GREEN, 1825 (AMPHIBIA): GRANT OF PRIORITY UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OVER GYRINUS MEXICANUS SHAW, 1789 RULING.— Under the plenary powers it is hereby Ruled that the specific name mexicanus Shaw, 1789, (Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, Name Number 1869) as published in the binomen Gyrinus mexicanus is not to be given priority over the specific name tigrina Green, 1825 (Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, Name Number 1911) as published in the binomen Salamandra tigrina by any zoologist who considers that these two names apply to the same species-group. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1861) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor Hobart M. Smith in September 1968. Professor Smith’s application was sent to the printer on 22 November 1968 and was published on 28 February 1969 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 227-228. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two specialist serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 June 1970 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (70) 24 either for or against the pro- posal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 228. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 1 September 1970 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twelve (12), received in the following order: Holthuis, Melville, Lemche, Sabrosky, Vokes, Obruchev, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Mertens, Munroe, Forest, Ride. Negative votes—three (3): Eisenmann, Starobogatov, Binder. Voting Papers not returned—seven (7): do Amaral, Bonnet, Brinck, Evans, Kraus, Mayr, Simpson. Professor Dr. Alvarado returned a late affirmative vote. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Mr. R. V. Melville (12.vi.1970): “The entry on the Official List must make it clear that tigrinum is to be given priority over mexicanum only by those zoolo- gists who hold that the two names refer to subspecies of the same species.” Dr. E. Eisenmann (22.vi.1970): “I see no adequate reason advanced for not following priority. There is no evidence as to any extensive usage treating the two species as conspecific with the name S. tigrina. The case is the usual one of merger (not yet generally accepted) of two species, in which event priority governs which specific name is to be used. I see no confusion at all as tigrina Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature will remain a subspecific name. I believe no vote should be taken until evidence of usage contrary to the usual rule of priority i.e. S. tigrina mexicana is advanced. The fact that a name is put on the Official List does not give it priority over another name put even earlier on the Official List which has admitted priority of publication.” Dr. W. D. L. Ride (20.viii.1970): “But I ask the Secretary to prepare, for examination by the Commission, the case for the validity of the statement on p. xii of the introduction to the Official List to the effect that names on the List have priority. According to the Code (Art. 78 (f)), Lists are compilations of names and works that are accepted in Opinions; and Opinions involve the application of the Code to a particular situation (Art. 78 (b)). Ido not see that the appearance of a name in the List says anything about its priority in relation to other names except to those considered and rejected by the Commission in the appropriate Opinion”. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (70) 24 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. 1025. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 14 May 1974 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135 REQUEST FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF DIDERMOCERUS BROOKES, 1828 (MAMMALIA). (Z.N.(S.) 1779) By Patrick J. Boylan (Leicestershire Museums, Art Galleries & Records Service) and Margaret Green (Scientific Assistant, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) In 1967, one of us expressed concern that the names Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 and Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 were both in current use for a genus of rhinoceros (Boylan, 1967, Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc. 36 : 115-125). At the same time the Commission was requested to determine the matter, and towards this end three different alternative sets of proposals were submitted (Boylan, 1967 Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 24 : 55-56). Subsequently, there have been both official and private comments on the alternatives outlined in the original application, and a survey of the recent usage of the two alternative names has been made. Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 and Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 are objective synonyms because they share the same type-species by monotypy, Rhinoceros sumatrensis Fischer, 1814 (Zoogn. 3 : 301). Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 was published in a sale catalogue (A catalogue of the anatomical and zoological museum of Joshua Brookes Part One, London: 76 pp) and appears on page 75 as Lot 16 of the rhinoceros specimens, seven of which are labelled Didermocerus sumatrensis. The sale catalogue fulfills the conditions laid down in Article 8 of the Code and is therefore an available publication for purposes of zoological nomenclature. One other name, Acinonyx Brookes, 1828—the generic name of the cheetah—has already been placed in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 971, in Opinion 384, published 20th April 1956. However, the name Didermocerus remained unused until Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, 1951 (Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals, 1758-1846) resurrected it. Simpson, (1945, Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 85) noted the priority of Didermocerus but rejected the name because it was unused and that as it had appeared in a sale catalogue it had not been properly published. On the other hand Simpson did use Acinonyx (Tom. cit: 120): an inconsistency that was noted by Ellerman and Morrison-Scott. Clearly Didermocerus cannot reasonably be rejected on the grounds that the Brookes’ Catalogue is not an available publi- cation when Acinonyx Brookes, 1828 from the same work is accepted. Since the publication of Ellerman and Morrison-Scott’s Checklist, Didermo- cerus has come into use and since 1951 at least 19 authors have used the name in 28 publications referring to the extant Sumatran rhinoceros and Lord Medway in a letter to the Commission wrote that Didermocerus was in general and wide- spread use in South and South-East Asia. On the other hand Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 (Handbuch Naturgesch : 125) is used by nearly all palaeontologists for a number of important fossil species and is also used by many zoologists for the extant Sumatran rhinoceros, Rhinoceros sumatrensis Fischer, 1814. D. A. Hooijer (Bull. 24 : 202) strongly supported the continued use of Dicerorhinus. C. P. Groves (1967, Saugetierk. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Mitt. 15 : 222) suggests that sumatrensis should be included in the genus Rhinoceros as it shares many characters in common with Rhinoceros sondaicus Desmarest 1822, but in his comment to the Commission (Bull. 24 : 279) he states that he has reverted to the use of Dicerorhinus. So far as we are aware the only use of Didermocerus for a fossil species was by one of us (Boylan, 1967 Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc. op. cit.) but although still convinced of the correctness of this usage under the Code, the form “Dicerorhinus’” has subsequently been preferred in order to avoid confusion in palaeontological literature. The three proposals between which the Commission was asked to choose in the original application may be summarised as follows: (A) recognise the validity of the Brookes’ Catalogue and of Didermocerus and reject Dicerorhinus; (B) reject the Brookes Catalogue and adopt the next available name i.e. Diceror- hinus; or (C) suppress the (valid) generic name Didermocerus by the use of the Commission’s plenary powers. As Sir Terence Morrison-Scott (pers. comm.) has rightly pointed out which- ever decision is reached it will clearly be a long time before the preferred usage is fully adopted and the position stabilised. Nor can a decision be reached on the relative merits of the two generic names without considering the significance of the Brookes Catalogue itself. Apart from its importance in respect of Acinonyx, Groves (Bull. 24 : 279) also points out that if the Commission decides not to validate the name Pan Oken, 1816 (Bull. 31 : 29) for the chimpanzee, the next available name is Theranthropus which appears on page 48 of the Brookes Catalogue. We are of the opinion that the Brookes Catalogue must be regarded as a valid work, and in Opinion 384 (Acinonyx) the Commission has by implication supported this view. Therefore of the three proposals outlined in the original application (Boylan, 1967, Bull. loc. cit.) proposal B does not seem to us to be acceptable. The remaining courses of action open to the Commission are therefore either to insist on the use of the prior name of Didermocerus (against the prevailing usage particularly in palaeontology where much of the taxonomic research into this particular group is concentrated) or to suppress Didermocerus in favour of Dicerorhinus by use of the plenary powers. A survey of the literature has shown that since 1951 more than 40 authors have used Dicerorhinus in 56 publications. It should be noted that if the nomen oblitum rule of the present Code had been in existence in 1951 Didermocerus might well have been suppressed by the Commission before the publication of Ellerman and Morrison-Scott’s Checklist. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested to: 1. Use its plenary powers to suppress the name Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of Law of Homonymy; 2. Place the sale catalogue ‘“‘A catalogue of the anatomical and zoological museum of Joshua Brookes Part One” published in London in 1828 on the Official List of Works Approved as available for Zoological Nomenclature; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137 3. Place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoo- logy: Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 (gender: masculine), type-species by monotypy Rhinoceros sumatrensis Fischer, 1814; 4. Place the specific name sumatrensis Fischer, 1814 (type-species of Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 5. Place the name Didermocerus Brookes, 1828, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES The following references are to serve as an indication of the usage of the names Didermocerus Brookes 1828 and Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841, since the publication of Ellerman and Morrison-Scott’s 1951 Checklist. Except where otherwise stated all references are to the Sumatran rhinoceros D. sumatrensis. Fossil species are indicated witht. Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 Aut, S. & SANTAPAU, H. 1960. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 56 : 625 ANDERSEN, S. 1962. Int. Zoo. Yearb. 3, 1961 (1962) : 56-57 ANon. 1970. Malay Nat. J. 24 : 1-2 Boyan, P. J. 1967. Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc. 36 : 115-125 (+ D. hemitoechus) Cave, A. J. E. 1964. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 142 : 73-83 Cave, A. J. E. & AUMONIER, F. 1962. Ji. R. micr. Soc. 81 : 73-77 — 1963. JI. R. micr. Soc. 82 : 29-37 — 1966. Jl. R. micr. Soc. 86 : 51-57 Groves, C. P. 1965. Saugetierk. Mitt. 13 : 128-131 Histor, J. A. 1961. Malay Nat. J. 21st Anniv. Spec. Issue: 95-99 — 1966. Oryx 8 : 353-359 Harrison, J. 1964. An introduction to the mammals of Sabah. The Sabah Society, Hesselton, Sabah, Malaysia — 1966. An introduction to the mammals of Singapore and Malaya. Singapore Branch, Malayan Nature Society, Singapore Harrisson, T. 1955. Oryx 3 : 134-137 — 1957. Sarawak Mus. J. 7, 1956 : 263-274 KRUMBIEGEL, I. 1962. Saugetierk. Mitt. 10 : 1-2 — 1965. Saugetierk. Mitt. 13 : 97-100 LANG, E. M. 1959. Saugetierk. Mitt. 7 : 177 LuKaszewicz, K. 1962. Przegl. zool. 6 : 303-306 Mepway, Lord. 1965. Mammals of Borneo, Field keys and an annotated checklist. Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Singapore: i-xiv, 1-193 — 1966a. Sarawak Mus. J. 12 (25-26) : 77-82 — 1966b. Sarawak Mus. J. 14 : 185-216 Metcatre, G.T.C. 1961. Malay Nat. J. 21st Anniv. Spec. Issue: 183-191 Prater, S.H. 1965. The book of Indian Animals (2nd Edition), Bombay REYNOLDs, R. J. 1961. Int. Zoo. Yearb. 2, 1960 (1961) : 42-43 Stevens, W. E. 1968. Malay Nat. J. 22 : 10-17 STRICKLAND, D. L. 1967. Malay Nat. J. 20: 1-17 TaLsot, L. M. 1960. Oryx 5 : 143-293 Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 Fossil species are marked with (+) ApaM, K.D. 1958. Razpr. Akad. Ljubljana (4) 4 : 435-440. (+D. kirchbergensis.) ARAMBOURG, C. 1959. Pub. Carte géol. Algér. Pal. Mém. 4 : 1-161. (+D. primaevus sp. nov, p. 56) 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BoniFay, M. F. 1961. Ann. Paléont. 47 : 75-89 (+ D. merkii) CapeE0o, G. 1958. Natura, Milano 49 : 151-157 (+D. merkii) CHALINE, J. 1963. Bull. scient. Bourgogne 31 : 123-133 (t+D. merkii) CuHow, B. 1963. Vertebr. palasiat. 7 : 325-330 (+D. choukoutienensis, +D. yunchuchenensis) CLutTTon-Brock, J. 1970. J. Zool. Lond. 162 : 19-29 (+ Dicerorhinus) CzyZEWSKA, T. 1962. Acta palaeont. polon. 7 : 223-234 (+D. merkii) — 1958. Acta. palaeont. pol. 3 (1) 49-58 (+ Dicerorhinus) DeGERBOL, M. 1952. Biol. Skr. 6 (8) : 1-26 ({D. kirchbergensis) DietricH, W. O. 1953. Z. Gesamt. Geol. Min. Geophys. Berlin 2 : 417-430 (}D. etruscus) Groves, C. P. 1967. Saugetierk. Mitt. 15 : 221-237 GUERIN, C., BALLESIO, R. & MEON-VILAIN, H. 1969. Docums Lab. Géol. Fac. Sci. Lyon No. 31 : 55-145 ({D. megarhinus) Hass, G. 1966. On the vertebrate fauna of the Lower Pleistocene site. ‘‘Ubeidiya”’. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem : 1-68 (+D. & tD. etruscus) Hoower, D. A. 1960. Bull. Res. Counc. Israel 99 : 104-108 (+D. merkii) — 1961. Zool. Verhandl. Leiden No. 49 : 1-68 (+D. merkii) — 1966. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. Geol. 13 : 117-190 (+D. leakeyi sp. nov.) KAHLKE,H.D. 1960. The early middle Pleistocene mammalian fauna of Sussenborn In: Musit, R. Mammalia pleistocaenica Anthropos 1 Suppl. : 77-99 ({D. etruscus) — 1960. Paldont. Z. 34-9 (}D. etruscus) — 1965. Paléont. Abh. Berlin (Abt. A) 2 : 451-520 (+D. etruscus) —— 1969. Paléont. Abh. Berlin (Abt. A) 3 : 547-610 ({D. etruscus) Kororkevicy, E. L. 1961. Zbirn. Prats zool. Mus. 30 : 114-121 (D) KurteN, B. 1968. Pleistocene Mammals of Europe, London viii 317 pp (+D. Spp.) LEHMANN, U. 1957. Mitt. geol. (St.) Inst. Hamb. 26 : 60-99 (+D. etruscus) Loose, H. 1960. Proc. Ned. Akad. Wet., Amst. 63B : 380-382 (+D. kirchbergensis) — 1961. Proc. Ned. Akad. Wet. Amst. 64B : 41-46 (+ D. hemitoechus) Matez, M. 1960. Anthropos 1 Suppl. 1 : 115-125 (FD. etruscus) — 196la. Palaeont. Jugoslav. No. 4 : 1-43 (+D. etruscus) —— 1961b. Geol. Vjesn. 14 : 63-88 (+D. kirchbergensis) MCNEELY, J. A. & CRONIN, E. W. 1962. Oryx 11 : 357-360 McWIL.IAMs, B. 1970. Bull. Soc. Belge Géol. Paléont. Hydrol. 79 : 169-174 (+D. etruscus) MELENTIs, J. K. 1966. Annis. geol. Pays Hell. 16 : 363-402 (}D. etruscus) Mortti, M. 1959. Carinthia II 68 : 46-48 (D. sp) —— 1967. Mitt. Mus. Bergh. Geol. Tech., Graz 15 : 77-87 ({D.) Nixotoy, I. 1965. Trav. Géol. Bulgarie B. Paléont. 7 : 225-317 Paviovic, M. B. 1963. Geolosk. An. balk. Poluost. 30 : 63-76 (+D. aff. sansaniensis) Petter, G. & HeIntz E. 1970. Bull. Mus. nat. Hist. nat. Paris 41 1969 : 1292-1298 PsaRIANOS, P. 1959. Prakt. Akad. Athens 33 : 330-312 (+D. etruscus) (D.) cere k C. & Kovacs, A. 1966. Lucr. Inst. Speol. Emil. Racovita 5 : 233-250 D.) Romer, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology (3rd Edition) Chicago, viii + 468 pp. (D. Raxkovecu, I. 1965. Razpr. slov. Akad. Znan. Umet (4) Hist. nat. 8 : 225-317 (D.) SHIKAMA, T., HASEGAWA, Y. & OKAFUNI, G. 1967. Bull. nat. Sci. Mus. Tokyo 10 : 455-462 (D.) SutcuiFFe, A. J. 1960. Trans. Torquay nat. hist. Soc. 13 : 1-26 — 1963. Notes on the mammal remains. Jn: SHOTTON, F. W., SUTCLIFFE, A. J. & West R. G. The fauna and flora from the Brick Pit at Lexden, Essex. Essex Nat. 31 : 15-22 (+D. hemitoechus) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139 SutcuirFe, A. J. 1964. The mammalian fauna pp. 85-111. Jn Ovey, C. D., The Swanscombe Skull, London xii + 216 pp. ({D. Kirchbergensis & +D. hemitoechus) —— & Zeuner, F. E. 1962. Proc. Devon archaeol. expl. Soc. 5 : 127-145. (D. hemitoechus) Tuenius, E. 1955. Mitt. geol. Ges. Wien. 45 : 135-146 (+D. hemitoechus). 1956- 1959. Jn: FELGENHAUR, F. Willendorf in der Wachau. Monographie der Palaolith-Fundstellen I-VII Mitt. prahist. Komm. Wien 8-9, 133-170 (+D. kirchbergensis) TweepieE, M. 1968. Animals 11 : 366-369 (7D. kirchbergensis, + D. hemitoechus) Uttricn, W. 1955. Zool. Gart. Lpz. 22 : 29-33 VANGENGEIM, E. A., BELIAJEVA, E. I. et al. 1966. Trud. geol. Inst. Leningr. 152 : 1-163 VIALLI, V. 1956. Mem. Soc. ital. Sci. Nat. 12 : 1-70 (7D. etruscus) VirET. 1958. Perissodactyla pp. 368-498. Jn PiveTEAu, J. Traité de Paléontologie 6 (2), Paris, 962 pp. (Sub-Fam.) Dicerorhininae, Genus Dicerorhinus). WALKER, A. 1969. Uganda J. 32 : 149-156 Yin, U. T. 1954. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 52 : 264-284 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CICADA CINGULATA (FABRICIUS) VAR. OBSCURA HUDSON, 1891 (INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA, SUBORDER HOMOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1888 By C. A. Fleming and J. S. Dugdale (New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Lower Hutt and Auckland, New Zealand) G. V. Hudson (1891), after describing ‘“‘Cicada cingulata Fabr.” (i.e. Tetti- gonia cingulata Fabricius, currently listed in the genus Amphipsalta Fleming by Dugdale & Fleming, 1969), introduced a new taxon “‘a. var. obscura” for a “distinct variety”, briefly defined (“remarkable for its smaller size, dull colour, and very loud chattering song’’), with a locality. Although he wrote “I do not think it is anything more than a variety”, Hudson’s name, in our judgement, must be classed as subspecific under Articles 45d (i) and 45e (i). It was given full specific rank under the combination Melampsalta obscura Hudson, by Hutton (1904) in his ‘‘Jndex Faunae Novae Zealandiae’’. In 1909, G. W. Kirkaldy introduced Cicadetta strepitans nom. nov. for Cicada cingulata var. obscura Hudson, recognising it as a good species and renaming it, he stated, because he had “not been able to identify it with any of Walker’s species”. Kirkaldy’s name has been consistently used for more than 60 years since its introduction in lists and systematic reviews (see Metcalf 1963) in combination with the generic names Melampsalta Amyot, Cicadetta Amyot and latterly with Amphipsalta Fleming. The existence of Hudson’s prior name has been known and cited in synonymies; its neglect as the valid name for the taxon to which it was originally applied has apparently been due to the weight of Kirkaldy’s authority and a belief that a name proposed for a variety did not qualify for priority as a species name. Both Myers (1921) in his revision, and Hudson himself (1950) accepted Kirkaldy’s later name for Cicada cingulata var. obscura. We have found no prior use of the species-group name obscura in combination with the generic names Cicada, Melampsalta, or Cicadetta. Recently (Fleming & Ordish 1966) a lectotype was chosen for Cicada cingulata var. obscura Hudson, which becomes automatically the lectotype for Cicadetta strepitans Kirkaldy. We consider that the application of the Law of Priority, whereby the insect now known as Amphipsalta strepitans (Kirkaldy) would be called Amphipsalta obscura (Hudson), would disturb stability and cause confusion. Although this species is not important to medicine or horticulture or in any other field of applied science, its trivial name, strepitans, has been used for over 60 years by many New Zealand entomologists, both amateur and professional, for whom cicadas are a favourite group. We therefore refer the case to the Commission for a decision under the Plenary Powers. To establish a prima facie case under Article 79(b) that stability is threatened we report that we have found no record of the senior name being used since 1904 except in synonymies and that the junior name has been applied to the taxon concerned, as its presumably valid name, by the following 7 authors in the publications cited: Kirkaldy (1909), Myers (1921, 1929a, 1929b), Myers and Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141 Myers (1924), Hudson (1950), Fleming & Ordish (1966), Fleming (1967), Dugdale & Fleming (1969), and Dugdale (1972). Moreover, in 1969, we rejected the name Cicada cingulata var. obscura Hudson on the grounds that it was an unused senior synonym of a name in general use to which (at that time) Article 23(b) of the code was relevant, and we recorded that we had applied to the Commission to place Hudson’s name on the Official Index of Rejected Specific Names in Zoology. (Owing to the proposed amendment of Article 23, the application was not processed.) Accordingly the Commission is requested: (1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name obscura Hudson, 1891, as published in the combination Cicada cingulata Fabr. a. var. obscura for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo- nymy. (2) to place the specific name obscura, published as above, on the Official Index of Rejected Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name strepitans Kirkaldy, 1909, as published under the binomen Cicadetta strepitans Kirkaldy, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED oe: J. S. 1972. Genera of New Zealand Cicadidae. N.Z. Jl. Sci. 14 (4): 856-882 DuaGpa.e, J. S. & FLEMING, C. A. 1969. Two New Zealand cicadas collected on Cook’s Endeavour Voyage, with description of a new genus. N.Z. Jl. Sci. 12 (4) : 929-957 Fieminc, C. A. 1967. Notes on the distribution of New Zealand Cicadas. N.Z. Ent. 3 (5) : 16-17 FLEMING, C. A. & OrpisH, R. G. 1966. Type specimens of G. V. Hudson’s taxa of New Zealand Cicadas (Genus Melampsalta, Hemiptera Homoptera). Rec. Dom. Mus. Wellington 5 (20) : 195-200 Hupson, G. V. 1891. On the New Zealand Cicadae. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 23 : 49-55 — 1950. Fragments of New Zealand Entomology Ferguson & Osborn, Wellington, 188 pp. Hutton, F. W. 1904. Index Faunae Novae Zealandiae Dulau & Co., London KirKaALpy, G. W. 1909. A list of the Hemiptera (Excluding Sternorrhyncha) of the Maorian Subregion, with notes on a few of the species. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 41 : 22-29 MetcaLr, Z. P. 1963. General catalogue of the Homoptera. Fasc. 8 Cicadoidea, Part 2 Tibicinidae. Washington, U.S. Dept. Agric., Raleigh N.C., N. Carolina State College, Raleigh, N.C. Paper No. 1564 Myers, I. & Myers, J. G. 1924. The sound-organs and songs of New Zealand Cicadidae (Homoptera). Rep. 16th Meeting Aust. Assoc. Advance Sci. (Wellington) : 420-432 Myers, J. G. 1921. A revision of the New Zealand Cicadidae (Homoptera) with descriptions of new species. Trans. Proc. N.Z. Inst. 53 : 283-350 — 1929a. The taxonomy, phylogeny and distribution of New Zealand Cicadas (Homoptera). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 77 : 29-60 — 1929b. Insect Singers. A natural history of the Cicadas. G. Routledge & Sons Ltd., London 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature HYMENOSOMA LAEVE TARGIONI TOZZETTI, 1877 (CRUSTACEA, BRACHYURA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2014 By J. S. Lucas (James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, 4810 Australia) I am engaged in a revision of the crab family Hymenosomatidae, and have discovered a senior synonym which would seem to be an unused senior synonym. Targioni Tozzetti (1877) described a new species, Hymenosoma laeve, from Victoria, Australia. I have reviewed the literature extensively, and to my knowledge, there have only been two references to this name, since the original description. Kemp (1917) mentioned it as a probable species of Halicarcinus White, 1846 and Tesch (1918) included it in his hymenosomatid monograph as a “species incertae sedis’. Therefore the specific name Jaeve has not been used since 1918. Haswell (1882 a & b) described the same taxon as Hymenosoma australe and this junior synonym has been used in the primary zoological literature in all other references to this species, except Kemp (1917). I know of fifteen refer- ences by more than five authors from 1906 to date in which Haswell’s name is used. These are listed below in chronological order. I have examined the hymenosomatid material in all the Australian Museums and in no case are specimens identified as /Jaeve. Further, the Curator of the Museo Zoologico de “La Specola’’, Firenze, Italy, informs me that the type- specimen of Hymenosoma laeve is not extant, having been destroyed in World War I. Therefore, I duly request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name Jaeve Targioni Tozzetti, 1877, as published in the binomen Hymenosoma laeve, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the specific name suppressed in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES * References marked with an asterisk are those which mention australe. TARGIONI Tozzetti, A. 1877. Crostacei Brachiurie Anomouri. In: ‘‘Zoologia del Viaggio intorno al Globo della R. pirocorvetta Magenta. Firenze. 257 pp., 13 pls. HASWELL, W. A. 1882a. On some new Australian Brachyura. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 6 : 540-551, 750-763 —— 1882b. Catalogue of the Australian stalk- and sessile-eyed Crustacea. Aust- ralian Museum, Sydney. 326 pp. *FuLton, S. W. and GRANT, F. E. 1906. Census of Victorian decapod Crustacea. Part 1 (Brachyura). Proc. R. Soc. Vict. (ser 2) 19 : 16-20 *Tescu, J.J. 1918. The Decapoda Brachyura of the Siboga Expedition. I. Hymeno- somidae, Retroplumidae, Ocypodidae, Grapsidae and Gecarcinidae. Siboga Exped. 39c (82) : 1-148 Bull. zool. Nomenci., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143 *Montcomery, S. K. 1921. Some Hymenosomidae from the Swan River. J. R. Soc. W. Aust. 6 : 93-96 *—__ 1931. Report on the Crustacea Brachyura of the Percy Sladen Expedition to the Abrolhos Islands under the leadership of Prof. W. J. Dakin in 1913, along with other crabs from Western Australia. J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 37 : 405-465 *HaLe, H. M. 1927. The Crustaceans of South Australia. Part 1. Govt Printer, Adelaide. 201 pp. *THompson, J. M. 1946. The fauna of the algal zone of the Swan River estuary. A preliminary survey of Freshwater Bay with notes on the chief species. J. R. Soc. W. Aust. 30 : 55-73 *Dakin, W. J., BENNETT, I. and Pope, E. 1952. Australian Seashores. Angus & Robertson, Sydney. xxii, 372 pp. *SERVENTY, D. L. 1955. The fauna of the Swan River estuary: 70-77. In: Swan River Reference Committee, Report by subcommittee on pollution of Swan River. Govt Printer, Perth *SNELLING, B. 1959. The distribution of intertidal crabs in the Brisbane River. Aust. J. mar. Freshwat. Res. 10 : 67-83 *SERENE, R. 1968. The Brachyura of the Indo-West Pacific Region: 33-112 Jn: Serene, R. (Ed.) Prodromus for a check list of the (non-planctonic) marine fauna of South East Asia. Singapore National Academy of Science, Special Publication No. 1, 120 pp. *Lucas J. S. 1970. Breeding experiments to distinguish two sibling species of Halicarcinus (Crustacea, Brachyura). J.Zool. 160 : 267-278 *—— 1971. The larval species of some Australian species of Halicarcinus (Crustacea, Brachyura, Hymenosomatidae). I. Morphology. Bull. Mar. Sci.21 : 471-490 * 1972. [As above.] II. Physiology. Bull. Mar. Sci. 22 : 834-840 *Lucas, J. S. and Hopckin, E. P. 1970. Growth and reproduction of Halicarcinus australis (Haswell) (Crustacea, Brachyura) in the Swan estuary, Western Australia. I. Crab instars. Aust. J. mar. Freshwat. Res. 21 : 149-162 Es 1970. [As above.] IJ. Larval stages. Aust. J. mar. Freshwat. Res. 21 : 163- 173 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature POLYGRAMMA CHEVROLAT, 1837: PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS SO AS TO CONSERVE LEPTINOTARSA STAL, 1854 (COLEOPTERA, CHRYSOMELIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2048 By Richard E. White (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, clo U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560) and Richard L. Jacques, Jr. (Department of Biological Sciences, Fairleigh Dickenson University, Rutherford, New Jersey, U.S.A.) The intent of this paper is to discuss the history of the genus-group names Leptinotarsa Stal and Polygramma Chevrolat and, in the interest of maintaining long standing usage, to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to (1) place Leptinotarsa Stal on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and (2) place Polygramma Chevrolat on the Official Index of Rejected Names. 2. The name Leptinotarsa was first published by Chevrolat (1837, in DeJean, Cat. Col. 5 : 397). The DeJean catalog was simply a list of names with no descriptions. None of the six names listed beneath Leptinotarsa was validated therein or earlier, so they were nomina nuda, as was Leptinotarsa. Leptinotarsa was again published by Chevrolat (1843, in d’Orbigny, Dict. Univ. d’Hist. Nat., 3 : 656) but was neither described nor had previously described species listed beneath it. The first valid publication of Leptinotarsa was by Stal (1858, Ofver. Kong. Vetens. Férh. 15 (9-10) : 475) when he described the genus and nine included species; none was designated as type- species. Motschulsky (1860, in Schrenck, Reisen Forsch. Amur-Lande, 2(2) : 182) designated the type-species as ““Lept. Heydenii Chev.’’, one of the species included by Stal. 3. Polygramma was proposed by Chevrolat (1837, p. 397) with citation of 4 species, all nomina nuda. However, listed beneath the nomen nudum decemlineata DeJean, as a synonym, was the available name juncta Germar (1824, Insect. Spec. Nov., p. 509); this serves to validate Polygramma with juncta as the type-species by monotypy. 4. Leptinotarsa is a New World genus of over 40 species. One species, the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say)), is of great economic importance, being the subject of many hundreds of publications in the literature of economic entomology in North America and in Europe, where it has been introduced. In the Index to the Literature of American Economic Entomology for the period of 1905 to 1914 alone there are listed 101 papers referring to this species. A list of references for Leptinotarsa, meeting the requirements of Article 79(b) is given at the end of the paper. Change of the firmly entrenched and familiar name Leptinotarsa to Polygramma cannot be justified. 5. Therefore, to avoid the confusion resulting from upsetting a long- accepted name, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby requested to take the following actions: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145 (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place Polygramma, type-species by monotypy, P. juncta (Germar), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the generic name Leptinotarsa Stal, 1858, (gender: feminine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the type-species L. heydenii Stal, as designated by Motschulsky, 1860; (4) to place Leptinotarsa heydenii Stal, 1858, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES MANOLACHE, C., BOGULEANU, G., SANDRU, I. and BeErRATLIEF, C. 1961. Lucr. Ses. stiint. Inst. agron. Nicolae Bdlescu (Ser. B) No. 5 : 343 UsHATINSKAIA, R. S. 1961. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 140(5) : 1189 DE WILDE, J., SLOOFF, R. and BoNGERs, W. 1960. Meded. LandbHoogesch Opzoek- Stns Gent 25(3-4) : 1340 DE WILDE, J., DuintTsER, C. S. and Mook, L. 1959. J. Ins. Physiol. 3(2) : 75 WEGoREK, W. 1959. Pr. nauk Inst. Ochr. Rosl. 1(2) : 1 PiEKARCZYK, K. 1959. Pr. nauk Inst. Ochr. Rosl. 1(1) : 47 WEGOREK, W. 1957. Roczn. Nauk roln. 74(A) pt 2 : 135 MacNay, C. G. 1958. Canad. Insect Pest Rev. 36(5) : 240 DE WILDE, J. 1958. Entomologia exp. appl. 1(1) : 14 Grison, P. 1958. Entomologia exp. appl. 1(2) : 73 Plus many hundreds of papers (largely economic) over the last hundred or so years. More references may be found in the Zoological Record for the years 1967 onwards. Polygramma usage Up until 1956 (see below), and for about 100 years, this name had been cited in literature exclusively as a synonym of Leptinotarsa. The mention in the 1956 citation, as far as I know, is the first time Po/ygramma was recognised as a senior synonym of Leptinotarsa. In 1958 (below) it was again cited as a valid name. Monros, F. & BEcHYNE, J. 1956. Ent. Arb. Mus. Georg Frey 7(3) : 1128 BEcHYNE, J. 1958. Ent. Arb. Mus. Georg Frey 9(2) : 531 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DACTYLOPIUS COSTA, 18351 AND PSEUDOCOCCUS WESTWOOD, 1840 (INSECTA HOMOPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE- SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS WITH PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF DIAPROSTECI COSTA, 1828. Z.N.(S.) 2056 By Douglass R. Miller (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md. 20705, U.S.A.) The purpose of this application is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to ensure the continued usage of the generic names Dactylopius Costa, 1835a1 and Pseudococcus West- wood, 1840 as currently understood. The economically important families Dactylopiidae Signoret, 1875 (cochineal insects) and Pseudococcidae Cockerell, 1905 (mealybugs), respectively, are based on these generic names. If the Code is strictly applied, these names will be in jeopardy. 2. Numerous accounts in the literature indicate the need of a Ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to these generic names (e.g., Ferris, 1950, p. 170, 1955, p. 85; Morrison and Morrison, 1966, pp. 54-55, 165; McKenzie, 1967, p. 288; Williams, 1969, p. 335), but until now, no application to the Commission has been made. 3. As can be seen from the following historical accounts, the identities of Dactylopius and Pseudococcus are closely intertwined. Because I believe that it would be virtually impossible to formulate an application on one genus without affecting the other, I have prepared a single document covering both genera. To understand the problems involved in retaining Dactylopius and Pseudococcus as currently recognized, it is necessary to outline the pertinent historical developments. History of Dactylopius 4. Costa (1828, p. 453) proposed Diaprosteci as a subdivision of Coccus Linnaeus, 1758, and included only Coccus adonidum Linnaeus (long-tailed mealybug) (misidentification, actually adonidum of authors, not Linnaeus, see paragraph 21). Therefore, C. adonidum is the type-species of Diaprosteci by monotypy. This generic name has not been used as a valid name for over 60 years (Morrison and Morrison 1966, p. 57) primarily because many authors (Cockerell 1902b, p. 453; DeLotto 1964, p. 378; Fernald 1903a, p. 22; Ferris 1957a, p. 44) believed that it was given in the Italian vernacular. However, Morrison and Morrison (1966, p. 57) stated, ““We are not able to confirm that this is a ‘vernacular name’ as defined in the 1961 Zoological Code. Instead, Diaprosteci appears to us to be derived from the Greek language, although poorly formed”. Two other subdivisions of Coccus (Calymmata and Diaspis) were described in the same publication and have been widely accepted by scale taxonomists (e.g., Fernald 1903b, pp. 167, 227; Ferris 1937, SI-31, 1957a, p. 44; Kirkaldy 1904, p. 228; Lindinger 1941, p. 67; Morrison and Morrison 1This publication was undated. The date currently accepted by coccidologists is 1835 (Fernald 1903a, p. 22; Morrison and Renk 1957, p. 56; Morrison and Morrison 1966, p. 26), but see paragraph 5. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147 1966, pp. 27, 29), although one of these is generally regarded as a junior synonym. It appears to me, therefore, that Diaprosteci must also be regarded as an avail- able generic name. 5. In Fauna del regno di Napoli, famiglia de’ coccinigliferi o de’ gallinsetti, Napoli, Costa (pp. 2, 15) described Dactylopius as a replacement name for Diaprosteci because he was dissatisfied with the latter. The date of this publi- cation is not known. Costa quotes several references, the latest of which are both 1828: Memoria sugl’ insette che vivono sull’ olivo, Atti del R. Ist. d’Incor- ragiamento, 4° vol. and I/ Pontano, Giorn. Scient. e Lett. di Napoli No. VIII. Sherborn (1937, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1(2) : 35-47) investigated the dates of publication of the Fauna del Regno di Napoli and says: “‘Coccinigliferi . . . pp. 1-8, 9-16, 17-23, probably before Fulgora, 1840”. He also says: “I may mention that the recovery of these dates involved the pulling to pieces of three copies of Costa, a proceeding I think scarcely likely to be repeated. It will be well to refer to my original note”. [1910, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 5 : 132]. In view of the fact that 1835 is the date which has come into use by most coccoid workers, I will, with the other requests ask that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature rules that the date of publication of Costa’s Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Famiglia de’ coccinigliferi o de’ gallinsetti. Emitteri, Napoli be accepted as 1835. By the provisions of Article 67(i) regarding the type-species of replacement nominal genera, the type of Dactylopius must be C. adonidum. In addition to ‘* Dactylopius adonidum’’ (long-tailed mealybug), which was only briefly mentioned, Costa also included D. polonicus (Linnaeus) and D. coccus (cochineal insect) which he described as new and which he used as a senior synonym of Coccus cacti Linnaeus (misidentification, cacti of authors, not Linnaeus, see paragraph 8). If there is any question about C. adonidum as the type-species of Dactylopius, it should be noted that the first subsequent type-designation was also C. adonidum by Targioni-Tozzetti, 1866, p. 129. 6. Targioni-Tozzetti (1867, p. 75) described as new Dactylopius longispinus for the long-tailed mealybug. 7. Signoret (1875, pp. 306, 346) did not follow Costa’s 1835 concept of Dactylopius. Instead, he placed the cochineal insect (C. cacti “des auteurs’’) in Coccus and the long-tailed mealybug (D. adonidum) and related species in Dactylopius. This concept gained general usage for the next 25 years. 8. Cockerell (1899a, p. 261) pointed out that C. cacti Linnaeus is not the cochineal insect at all but is a member of the family Margarodidae. Most earlier references to C. cacti Linnaeus were misidentifications. According to Cockerell, the next available name for the cochineal insect is D. coccus Costa. (See De Lotto (1974, Bull. zool. Nomencl 31 : 154) for discussion of D. coccus). 9. Cockerell (1902b, p. 454) significantly changed the concept of Dactylo- pius by restricting the genus to the cochineal insects and using D. coccus as the type-species. Although Cockerell’s action was incorrect, it has been followed with few exceptions (e.g., Kirkaldy 1904b, p. 255; MacGillivray 1921, p. 103) and is overwhelmingly the current usage. 10. De Lotto (1971, p. 258) states that Costa (1835b, p. 6) established Dacty- lopius coccus as the type-species of Dactylopius by “‘subsequent monotypy”’. 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature However, type designation by “subsequent monotypy” does not apply in this case because three species were included in the original description of Dactylopius (see Article 69(a) (ii) (2). It appears that De Lotto considered D. coccus to be the type of the genus by subsequent restriction, but this is not a valid mecha- nism for type designation. 11. According to the Rules, Dactylopius Costa, with its type-species Coccus adonidum Linnaeus (misidentification, = Dactylopius longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti), is a junior objective synonym of Diaprosteci Costa. Also, even if Diaprosteci is taken as a vernacular name (and J don’t think it should be), Dactylopius is the senior generic name for the mealybug D. /Jongispinus and related species in the family Pseudococcidae. Both of these interpretations are undesirable, because current usage of Dactylopius (type-species D. coccus) for the cochineal insects (family Dactylopiidae) is now well established. 12. To comply with the requirement adopted in Monaco, 1972 for the suppression of an unused senior synonym (Diaprosteci) to be replaced by a commonly used junior synonym (Dactylopius), the following citations in support of current usage are given: Balachowsky, 1948, p. 256; Fernald, 1903b, p. 80; Ferris, 1919, p. 19, 1955, p. 85, 1957b, p. 85; Green, 1922, p. 357; Hoy, 1963, p. 57; Lindinger, 1943, p. 265; Mamet, 1950, p. 17, 1951, p. 222; Mann, 1969, p. 138; Williams, 1969, p. 324. To my knowledge, the genus name Diaprosteci has not been used as a valid senior synonym for more than 50 years. History of Pseudococcus 13. Inthe text of his Modern Classification of Insects (June, 1840, pp. 447, 488) Westwood described the genus Pseudococcus in which he included only C. cacti. However, in the appendix (p. 118, also published June 1840, see Blackwelder, 1949, p. 45) he included both cacti and adonidum. Therefore, Westwood’s genus was not monotypic; he did not designate a type-species. (See paragraph 17 below for subsequent designation.) 14. Targioni-Tozzetti (1866, p. 121) treated Pseudococcus as a junior synonym of Dactylopius but did not designate a type-species for Pseudococcus. 15. Targioni-Tozzetti (1867, p. 75) described Dactylopius longispinus as new and treated it as a senior synonym of C. adonidum Linnaeus. 16. Signoret (1875, p. 328) drastically altered the concept of Pseudococcus to include only the mealybug species now placed in the genus Phenacoccus Cockerell. He made no mention of a type-species. The long-tailed mealybug adonidum was placed in Dactylopius. This concept was generally adhered to for the next 19 years. 17. Cockerell (1893, p. 318) described Phenacoccus for the species that Signoret included in Pseudococcus, but he did not designate a type-species. For Pseudococcus Cockerell wrote, “I find what appears to be its [Pseudococcus] earliest publication in the ‘Modern Classification of Insects’, vol. i (1839), [wrong volume and date] p. 118. Here Westwood writes: ‘Pseudococcus Westw. (C. adonidum, cacti, etc.), [actually C. adonidum, Cacti, & c.] having the female[s] not fixed, and clothed with a woolly secretion’ [Cockerell continues] ... The definition would fit several genera as now understood, but in the absence of any indication of a type species we should take adonidum as the type, as it is Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149 first mentioned. However, in ‘Mod. Class. Ins.’ vol. ii (1840), p. 448 [actually 447], all doubt on this score is removed, since we read that C. ilicis is to be considered the type of Coccus, and of C. cacti, the author [Westwood] states: ‘this insect . . . belongs to a genus . . . which I propose to name Pseudococcus’. [Cockerell continues] No mention is here made of adonidum, and I think we may consider that cacti was certainly intended as the type of the genus’’. 18. This quotation was the first attempt at type-species fixation for Pseudo- coccus, and it appears that Cockerell may have designated two type-species in the same publication. However, based on the following phrases from the above quotation, I conclude that C. cacti was intended by Cockerell to be the type- species. “‘...in the absence of any indication [emphasis mine] of a type species we should take adonidum as the type...” However, in the next paragraph Cockerell alluded to an indication as follows: “However . . . all doubt on this score is removed, since we read [in Westwood 1840] that... C. cacti belongs to a genus . . . which I [Westwood] propose to name Pseudococcus”. Cockerell continued “ . . . I think we may consider that cacti was certainly intended [emphasis mine] as the type of the genus”. 19. Further evidence that Cockerell intended C. cacti (cochineal insect) to be the type-species is provided by the fact that he used Pseudococcus for the cochineal insect in later papers (e.g., Cockerell 1899b, p. 277, 1900, p. 992). 20. Cockerell (1902a, p. 342, 1902b, p. 456) significantly altered his ideas in regard to Pseudococcus and suggested that the genus should encompass C. adonidum and related mealybug species; he placed the cochineal insects in Dactylopius. This concept of using Pseudococcus and Pseudococcidae for the mealybugs has been generally followed from 1902 to the present with few ex- ceptions (e.g., Kirkaldy, 1904a, p. 226; Laing, 1944, p. 93) and is overwhelmingly the current usage. _ 21. De Lotto (1965, p. 226) pointed out that Coccus adonidum Linnaeus, which for many years had been considered the type-species of Pseudococcus (e.g., Balachowsky, 1953, p. 1047; De Lotto, 1964, p. 377; Ferris, 1950, p. 117) and the valid name for the long-tailed mealybug, is not a mealybug and appa- rently is not even a scale insect. Therefore, most earlier references to C. adonidum Linnaeus are misidentifications. The first available name for the long-tailed mealybug is Dactylopius longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti (see para- graph 15). 22. According to the Rules Pseudococcus Westwood, with its type-species Coccus cacti Linnaeus (misidentification, = Dactylopius coccus Costa), is the senior available generic name for the cochineal insect D. coccus and related species. However, current usage of Pseudococcus (type-species Dactylopius longispinus) as a mealybug genus is well established. 23. In support of the current usage of Pseudococcus the following citations are given: Balachowsky, 1953, p. 1047; Borchsenius, 1949, p. 90; De Lotto, 1964, p. 377; Fernald, 1903b, p. 96; Ferris, 1950, p. 171; Green, 1922, p. 369; McKenzie, 1960, p. 725, 1962, p. 654, 1967, p. 288; Williams, 1962, p. 39. 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Justification for Retaining Current Usage 24. Inthe current systematic literature concerning Dactylopius and Pseudo- coccus, the concepts presented by Cockerell (1902b) are utilized by virtually all active scale taxonomists. Any change in these concepts would cause con- siderable confusion in the extensive taxonomic literature of the Pseudococcidae and Dactylopiidae. 25. Dactylopius and Pseudococcus contain species of major economic importance in biological control, economic entomology, and plant quarantine. Because of this, over the past 50 years a large quantity of economic literature has been generated utilizing the current generic concepts. Any change in these concepts would cause serious disruption in this literature. 26. To avoid the confusion caused by exchange of family name concepts (Dactylopiidae, cochineal insects, to Pseudococcidae, and Pseudococcidae, mealybugs, to Dactylopiidae) resulting from strict application of the Rules, a Ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is necessary. It should be obvious that any change in the currently recognized families of scale insects would cause major disruption in the economic and taxonomic literature. 27. It has been suggested that Article 70(a) (misidentified type-species) might be applied to this application. However, even though both C. adonidum Linnaeus (type-species of Dactylopius) and C. cacti Linnaeus (type-species of Pseudococcus) were misidentified, this Article is not appropriate. Application of either (i) or (iii) would be undesirable, because neither circumstance would lead to current usage. Application of (i), for Dactylopius would mean that the species is not evena scale insect (De Lotto, 1965). For Pseudococcus the nominal species involved in the misidentification of Coccus cacti Linnaeus is a member of the Margarodidae. If Coccus adonidum Linnaeus is considered as type then again the species would not be a scale insect. Application of (iii), for Dactylo- pius would result in this being the name for the mealybugs (now Pseudococcidae) and Pseudococcus would become the name for the cochineal insects (now Dactylopiidae). Application of (ii) is not possible because the identity of “the nominal species actually involved”’ is certain. 28. Therefore, in the interest of stability and uniformity of scale insect nomenclature, I request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature use its Plenary Powers to conserve Dactylopius and Pseudococcus as they are presently understood. To accomplish this goal, the Commission is requested to: (1) Use its Plenary Powers to: (a) suppress the generic name Diaprosteci Costa, 1828, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) rule that the date of publication of Costa’s Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Famiglia de’ coccinigliferi o de’ gallinsetti. Emitteri, Napoli be accepted as [1835]; (c) set aside all designations of type-species made prior to the Rulings here requested for the genus Dactylopius Costa, 1835, and having done so, to designate Dactylopius coccus Costa, 1835, as the type-species of that genus; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151 (d) set aside all designations of type-species made prior to the Ruling here requested for the genus Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840, and having done so, to designate Dactylopius longispinus Targioni- Tozzetti, 1867, as the type-species of that genus. (2) Place the generic name Diaprosteci Costa, 1828, (as suppressed under the Plenary Powers in 1(a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (3) Place the family group name DACTYLOPIIDAE (correction of “Dactylo- pites’’) Signoret, 1875 (type-genus Dactylopius Costa, 1835), on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology. (4) Place the family group name PSEUDOCOCCIDAE (correction of ‘‘Pseudo- coccini”) Cockerell, 1905 (type-genus Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840), on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology. (5) Place Dactylopius Costa, 1835 (gender: masculine) type-species Dactylo- pius coccus Costa, 1835, by designation under the plenary powers in 1(c) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (6) Place Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (gender: masculine) type-species Dactylopius longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867, by designation under the plenary powers in 1(d) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (7) Place the specific name Jongispinus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867, as published in the binomen Dactylopius longispinus (type-species of Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (8) Place the specific name coccus Costa, 1835, as published in the binomen Dactylopius coccus (type-species of Dactylopius Costa, 1835) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (9) Place the publication by Costa “‘Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Famiglia de’ coccinigliferi o de’ gallinsetti”’, Emitteri, Napoli on the Official List of Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature with the endorsement that its date of publication is to be cited as [1835]. LITERATURE CITED BatacHowsky, A. 1948. Les cochenilles de France, d’Europe, du Nord de l’Afrique et du Bassin Méditerranéen. IV. Monographie des Coccoidea. Classi- fication—Diaspidinae (Premiére partie). Actual. Sci. Ind., Entomol. Appl. 1054 : 243-394 -—— 1953. Sur un Dysmicoccus nouveau nuisible au Casuarina en A.O.F. Inst. Fr. Afr. Noire 15 : 1046-1050 BLACKWELDER, R. E. 1949. Studies on the dates of books on Coleoptera. I. Coleopt. Bull. 3 : 42-46 Borcusenius, N. S. 1949. Coccoidea, Pseudococcidae. Fauna of the USSR. Vol. 7. Akad. Nauk Zool. Inst. no. 38, 383 pp. COcKERELL, T. D. A. 1893. Note on the genus Pseudococcus Westwood. Entomol. News 4 : 317-318 — 1899a. Some notes on Coccidae. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1899 : 259-279 — 1899b. Tables for the determination of the genera of Coccidae. Can. Entomol. 31 : 273-279 — 1900. The name of the cochineal. Sci. (n.s.) 11 : 991-992 D 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CocKERELL, T. D. A. 1902a. On a species of Pseudococcus from Mexico. Bol. Com. Parasit. Agric. Mex. 1 : 342-343. Also in Mem. Rev. Soc. Cien. ‘Antonio Alzate”’ 17 : 145-146 — 1902b. A contribution to the knowledge of the Coccidae. Appendix. Some Brazilian Coccidae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (ser. 7) 9 : 450-456 — 1905. Tables for the identification of Rocky Mountain Coccidae (scale insects and mealybugs). Univ. Colo. Stud. 2 : 189-203 Costa, O. G. 1828. Prospetto di una nova divisione methodica del genere Coccus Lin., Fabr., Latr., Lamark. Pontano 1 : 449-454. Also in Napoli, Dalla Tipografia Trani. 8 pp. (1828) — [1835]a. Fauna del regno di Napoli, famiglia de’ coccinigliferi, o de’ gallinsetti. Emitteri: Napoli, 23 pp. — 1835b. Nuove osservazioni intorno alle cocciniglie ed ai loro pretesi maschi. F. Fernandes, Napoli, 24 pp. — 1840. Title as above. Afti Real Inst. Incoragg. Sci. Nat. Napoli 6 : 31-52 De Lotro, G. 1964. Observations on African mealy-bugs. Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Entomol. 14 : 343-397 — 1965. The nomenclatural status of the common long tailed mealy bug. J. Entomol. Soc. South Afr. 27 : 226-229 — 1970. On the status of two genera of soft scales. Boll. Lab. Entomol. Agraria Filippo Silvestri Portici 28 : 257-261 — 1974. Coccus sativus Lancry, 1791, Coccus mexicanus Lamarck, 1801 and Coccus silvestris Lancry, 1791 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 31 : FERNALD, M. E. 1903a. Notes on the Coccidae. Can. Entomol. 35 : 22 — 1903b. A catalogue of the Coccidae of the world. Mass. Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Bull. no. 88, 360 pp. Ferris, G. F. 1919. A contribution to the knowledge of the Coccidae of south- western United States. Stanf. Univ. Publ., Univ. Ser. 67 pp. —— 1937. Atlas of the scale insects of North America. Vol. 1. Stanf. Univ. Press: California, serial nos. SI-1 to SI-136 —— 1950. Atlas of the scale insects of North America. Series V. The Pseudo- coccidae (Part I). Stanf. Univ. Press: California. 1-278 — 1955. Atlas of the scale insects of North America. Vol. VU. The families Aclerdidae, Asterolecaniidae, Conchaspididae, Dactylopiidae, and Lacciferidae. Stanf. Univ. Press: California. 1-233 — 1957a. A brief history of the study of the Coccoidea. Microentomol. 22: 39-57 — 1957b. A review of the family Eriococcidae. Microentomol. 22 : 81-89 GreEN, E. E. 1922. The Coccidae of Ceylon. Vol. 5. Dulau and Co.: London, pp. 345-472 Hoy, J. M. 1963. A catalogue of the Eriococcidae of the world. N.Z. Dep. Sci. Ind. Res. Bull. no. 150, 260 pp. KirKALpy, G. W. 1904a. A list of the Coccidae of the Hawaiian Islands. Entomol. 37 : 226-230 — 1904b. Biographical and nomenclatorial notes on the Hemiptera. No. 2. Entomol. 37 : 254-258 Lainc, F. 1944. A new injurious mealy-bug from the Gold Coast. Bull. Entomol. Res. 35 : 91-93 LinpinceR, L. 1941. Uber nordwestdeutsche Schildlause. Bombus no. 17 : 66-67 — 1943. Verzeichnis der Schildlaus—Gattungen, 1. Nachtrag. Z. Wien. Entomol. Gesell. 28 : 264-265 Linnagus, C. 1758. Systema naturae, Edition X. Vol. 1, 823 pp. MacGittivray, A. D. 1921. The Coccidae. Scarab Co.: Illinois, 502 pp. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153 Mamet, R. P. R. 1950. Notes on the Coccoidea of Madagascar.—I. Mém. Inst. scient. Madagascar (A) 4 : 17-38 — 1951. Notes on the Coccoidea of Madagascar.—II. Mém. Inst. scient. Madagascar (A) 5 : 213-254 oT. 1969. Cactus feeding insects and mites. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. no. 256, pp. McKenzirz, H. L. 1960. Taxonomic study of California mealybugs with descrip- tions of new species. Hilgardia 29 : 681-770 — 1962. Third taxonomic study of California mealybugs, including additional species from North and South America. Hilgardia 32 : 637-688 — 1967. Mealybugs of California with taxonomy, biology and control of North American species. Univ. California Press: Berkeley, 525 pp. Morrison, H. and Morrison, E. R. 1966. An annotated list of generic names of the scale insects. U.S. Dep. Agric. Misc. Publ. no. 1015, 206 pp. Morrison, H. and RENK, A. V. 1957. A selected bibliography of the Coccoidea. U.S. Dep. Agric. Misc. Publ. no. 734, 222 pp. SicNoreT, V. 1875. Essai sur les cochenilles ou gallinsectes. Groupe des Dacty- lopites. Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr. (ser. 5) 5 : 305-352 TARGIONI-TozzeTT1, A. 1866. Come certe cocciniglie sieno cagione di alcune melate delle piante, e di alcune ruggini; e come la cocciniglia del fico dia in abbondanza una specie dicera. R. Accad. Geografi Atti (Firenze) (n.s.) 13 : 115- 137 — 1867. Studii sulle cocciniglie. Mem. Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. Vol. 3, 87 pp. WESTWOOD, J.O. 1839-1840. An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the natural habits and corresponding organisation of the different families. Vol. I. A. Spottiswoode, London, 587 pp. Also, 1838-1840, Synopsis of the genera of British insects. 158 pp. WituiAMs, D. J. 1962. The British Pseudococcidae. Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Entomol. 12 : 1-79 — 1969. The family-group names of the scale insects. Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Entomol. 23 : 315-341 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COCCUS SATIVUS LANCRY, 1791, COCCUS MEXICANUS LAMARCK, 1801 AND COCCUS SILVESTRIS LANCRY, 1791 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2057 By Giovanni De Lotto (Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa) In the course of a revision of the cochineal insects of the genus Dactylopius O. Costa, 1835 (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Dactylopiidae), I have found three senior synonyms of two specific names in general use. Under the provision of Article 23(a-b) of the Code, I formally apply for the suppression of these senior synonyms and their placement on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. They are (A)(i)—Coccus sativus Lancry, 1791 and (ii) Coccus mexicanus Lamarck, 1801 and (B)—Coccus silvestris Lancry, 1791. The names in “‘A”’ were introduced for the cochineal insect of commerce currently referred to as Dactylopius coccus O. Costa, 1835*. This name was proposed by Cockerell (1902) following his discovery (Cockerell, 1899) that the description of Coccus cacti Linnaeus, 1758 (under which name the insect was previously known) actually referred to a species of MARGARODIDAE, a family of the scale insects quite apart from the DACTYLOPIIDAE. Since then the name D. coccus has been widely used in text books (e.g. Imms, A. D. 1960 (9th edition) A General Text-book of Entomology, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London), and other works of general knowledge (e.g. The Encyclopaedia Britannica). The following list of references satisfies the requirements of Article 79(b): Balachowsky, 1948; Ferris, 1955, 1957; Housse, 1948; Hoy, 1963; Lindinger, 1943, 1937; Mamet, 1950a, b, c; Mann, 1969; Williams, 1969. The name in “‘B” is an older synonym of the species currently referred to as Dactylopius tomentosus (Lamarck, 1801). Although this species is less known than D. coccus and in spite of some confusion on its status and identity made by some biologists the name is firmly established in the present taxonomic litera- ture. It has been used by the following authors in the last 50 years: Balachow- sky, 1959; Cockerell, 1929; De Lotto, 1959; Dodd, 1927; Ferris, 1955; Lizer y Trelles, 1937, 1939; Lobdell, 1937; Mamet, 1951; Silvestri, 1939. It should be noted that the three names have never been used since they were first introduced. They were discovered a few years ago by L. Lindinger. He (1943) at first erroneously credited the authorship of sativus and silvestris to Thierry de Menonville (1787); but later following the opportunity to see the original source, he (Lindinger, 1949) ascribed both species to Lancry. Lindin- ger’s suggestion though right as far as the principle of priority is concerned, is however, utterly undesirable and unnecessary. *O. Costa, 1835. The date of publication has never been satisfactorily settled. How- ever taxonomists commonly endorse the year 1835 as the most likely right date as given by Fernald (1903) and Lindinger (1937). See also p. 147. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155 I therefore request the International Commission to: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the names sativus Lancry, 1791, as published in the binomen Coccus sativus; silvestris Lancry, 1791 as published in the binomen Coccus silvestris and mexicanus Lamarck, 1801 as pubished in the binomen Coccus mexicanus. (2) place the specific names suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BaLAcHowsky, A. 1948. Actual Sci. Ind., Ent. Appl. No. 1054 : 256, (D. coccus) 1959. Revta Acad. colomb. Cienc. exact. fis. nat. 10 : 363 (D. tomentosus) CocKERELL, T. D. A. 1899. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1899 : 259-275 — 1902. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 9 : 450-456 — 1929. Science 69 : 329 (D. tomentosus) De Lotro, G. 1959. J. ent. Soc. Sth. Afr. 22 : 153 (D. tomentosus) Dopp, A. P. 1927. Bull. Coun. scient. ind. Res. Melb. 34 : 11 (D. tomentosus) Ferris, G. F. 1955. Atlas Scale Ins. N. Am. vol. 7, Stanford University Press, California: 85 (D. coccus); 92 (D. tomentosus) — 1957. Microentomology 22 : 85 (D. coccus) Housse, R. P.R. 1948. Acta. zool. lilloana 5 : 19-39 (D. coccus) Hoy, J. 1963. Bull. N.Z. Dep. scient. ind. Res. 150 : 57 (D. coccus) LAMARCK, J. B. P. A. de M. de 1801. Syst. Anim.: 299 Lancry, M. 1791. Cactier. Cactus. In: Encycl. Méthodique Agriculture 2 : 454-529 (484-511) Linpincer, L. 1937. Ent. Jb. 46: 183 (D. coccus). 1943. Z. wien. ent. Ges. 28 : 265 (D. coccus) — 1949. Entomon, Munich 1 : 210-213 LospeELL, G. H. 1937. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 30: 78 (D. tomentosus) Lizer Y TRELLES, C. 1937. Revta Soc. ent. argent. 11 : 333 (D. tomentosus) — 1939. Physis, B. Aires 17 : 183 (D. tomentosus) Mamet, R. 1950. Mém. Inst. scient. Madagascar (A)4 : 17 (D. coccus) — 1951. Mém. Inst. scient. Madagascar (A)5 : 220(D.tomentosus), 222 (D. coccus) MANN, J. 1969. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. No. 256 : 138 (D. coccus) Strvestri, F. 1939. Compendio di Ent. Appli. 1(2) : 661, 666 (D. tomentosus) THIERY DE MENONVILLE, N. J. 1787. Traité de la culture du Nopal, et de l’éducation de la Cochenille dans les colonies Frangaises de l Amérique; précédé d’un voyage a Guaxaca, etc. Cap-Frangais pp. cxliv, 439 WiwuiaMs, D. J. 1969. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) 12 : 324 (D. coccus) 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF CONUS MOLUCCENSIS (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.) 2059 By Walter O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Private Bag, Auckland, 1, New Zealand) 1. Kiister (1838) published the description of Conus moluccensis from the Moluccas Islands, and cited as reference a prior, non binominal description and illustration from Chemnitz (1795). Kiister’s illustrations for the species were copies of figures published by Chemnitz (op. cit.). Due to the rarity of the species, the taxon C. moluccensis Kiister, 1838, has been cited only about five times in popular and scientific malacological literature during the last 50 years, and more often than not, the name has erroneously been applied to the related but specifically distinct Conus proximus Sowerby, 1859. 2. During the preparation of a paper on C. moluccensis, the writer has come across an earlier and probably available erection of C. moluccensis by Dillwyn (1817). The mode of proposal, however, is in such an ambiguous manner that it is not at all clear whether or not the name is nomenclaturally available. The name Conus moluccensis was not, strictly speaking, published in the synonymy of C. auger [Lightfoot, 1786], but was included in the discussion of the species by Dillwyn, and referred to the same description and illustration in Chemnitz (op. cit.) as the one cited by Kiister (op. cit.). Dillwyn’s citation of the name C. moluccensis in italics in the Index to his work would indicate that he did not clearly accept the name as a valid taxon, while the phrase “which differ materially from each other both in shape and colour” could imply that he accepted C. pertusus Born and C. moluccensis as valid names. A copy of page 421 showing the manner of erection of C. moluccensis by Dillwyn, is appended to this application. 3. Several papers on C. moluccensis and related taxa are currently in pre- paration and it is important that the authorship of the name be clarified. A rejection or acceptance of Dillwyn as author of C. moluccensis would in no way affect nomenclatorial stability, whereas a straight out ruling that the name is not available as from Dillwyn, may have repercussions affecting other parenthetical remarks in his work. 4. The International Commission is therefore requested to vote for one of the following alternatives: (A) use its plenary powers to suppress both for the purposes of the Law of Priority and that of Homonymy, the name moluccensis Dillwyn, 1817, as published in the binomen Conus moluccensis; (1) to place the specific name moluccensis Kiister, 1838, as published in the binomen Conus moluccensis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (2) to place the specific name moluccensis Dillwyn, 1817, as published in the binomen Conus moluccensis (as suppressed under the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157 CONUS. 421 Le Chotin. Adanson Senegal, p. 05. t G. f. 6 Enc. Meth. t. 343. f. 7. Inhabits the coasts of Senegal. Adunson. Shell about an inch and a quarter or an inch and a half long, and not half as broad, and is more nearly allied to C. Radix than to C. Jamaicensis; from the jormer it differs in colour and in the shape of its spire, aud it is not much more than half so broad, and far more cylindrical than the latter. London, vol. 1, page 421 AUGUR. 135. Shell conical, grooved at the base, white, with numerous transverse rows of reddish dots, and two of oblong brown streaks ; spire obtuse, and the whirls chan- nelled. Conus Augur. Solander’s MSS. Portland Cat. p. 44. lot 1046. Bruguiere Enc. Meth. p. 685. Shaw's Nat. Misc. xxi. t. 896. Lamarck Ann. du Mus..xv. p. 277. Conus punctatus. Gmelin, p. 3389. Schreibers Conch. i. p. S8. Gun Magus. Martini, ii. p. 288. t. 58. f.641. Born Mus. p. 164. Schroeter Etni. i: p. 50. Gmelin, p. 3392. Schreibers Conch. i. p. 42. L’ Enseigne Chinois. 'avanne, il. p. 463. Lister Conch. t. 755. £. 7. Rumphius, t. 32. f. Q. Petiver Amb. t.5.f.10. Argenoille App. t. 2. f. B. Knorr, vi. t. 13. f.6. Enc. Meth. t. 333. f. 6. Inkabits the coasts of Ceylon. Bruguiere. Amboyna. Shaw. Shell one or two inches long, and may be readily known from C. Magus by its being considerably more than half as broad. As Bruguiere’s C. pertusus is placed next to this species, it may be here remarked that I have seen a specimen of C. Nussatella, in which the granular dots had been polished off s0 as to leave the places on which they stood deprived of the enamel coat, and which had consequently been acted on by the acids used in cleaning, so as to a minute hollow punc- tures. C. pertusus of Bruguiere, C. Moluccensis of Chem- nitz, (xi. p. 63. t. 183. f. 1780 and 1781.) and Le Cornet @ Trous of Favanne, (ii. p. 621. t. 79. f. M.) which differ materially from each other both in shape and colour, are described with punctured striz, and it appears rather doubt- ful' whether the punctures may not have been produced either in the same or some other artificial manner, .. This observation applies also to C. acutangylus of Chemnitz, xi. p. 59. t. 182, f, 1772 and 1773. Text—Fic. 1.—Xerox copy of Dillwyn, L. W. 1817. A descriptive catalogue of Recent shells. 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature plenary powers in (A) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; OR (B) rule that Dillwyn (1817) made the name Conus moluccensis available for taxonomic usage and is to be cited as its author, and (1) place the specific name moluccensis Dillwyn, 1817, as published in the binomen Conus moluccensis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES CHEMNITZ, J. H. 1795. Neues Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet. Niirnberg, 11 : 63, pl. 183, figs. 1780-81 Dittwyn, L. W. 1817. A descriptive catalogue of Recent shells arranged according to the Linnaean method: with particular attention to the synonymy. London, 1 : 421 and 2: Index Kuster, H.C. 1838. Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet von Martini und Chemnitz. Familie der Coneae oder Conidae. ed. 2. Niirnberg, 4(2) : 121, 181, pl. 23, figs. 4-5 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159 SPHEX VIATICA LINNAEUS: A PROBLEM OF TYPES AND REVISERS (HYMENOPTERA, SPHECIDAE OR POMPILIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2061 By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA‘) The problem of the identity of Sphex viatica Linnaeus has a confused history, and at almost every step there are points, both nomenclatural and zoological, upon which opinions differ. Authors who have published on the problem usually seem to be positive that no other interpretation than their own is possible; such an approach is of course satisfying for the individual, but not authoritatively helpful for others. I am not a hymenopterist, but my advice was requested on nomenclatural aspects of the problem, and I believe that clearcut decisions on these would be helpful here and in similar cases of disagreement. The specific name is correctly viaticus, but the original spelling— and that of most authors—is used for present purposes. 2. The spider wasp family is herein referred to as Pompilidae, without thereby intending comment on Pompilus and Pompilidae vs. Psammochares and Psammocharidae. Arguments on that are not strictly relevant to the specific question of the identity of Sphex viatica. 3. The essential publications are as follows: (a) Linnaeus, 1758 : 570.—Sphex viatica briefly described, with citations to Frisch (1721) and others, and a statement that it provisions its nests with caterpillars. (b) Linnaeus, 1761 : 412.—Redescription of S. viatica, followed by a description of S. fusca, the latter admittedly a pompilid. The biological note of 1758 was omitted. (c) De Villers, 1789 : 229-230.—Descriptions of viatica and fusca, the former accompanied by the biological note from the 1758 edition. Townes (1973) maintained that ‘‘Villiers [sic] is indisputably a revisor [sic]”, but the description of viatica is still a bit confused, and the Frisch reference is still included in the citations under viatica. Moreover, despite Townes’ statement that de Villers “took the trouble to point out some of Fabricius’ confusion between the sphecid and the psammocharid, showed clearly the distinction between the two species, and stated definitely that viatica was the sphecid’’, the fact remains that de Villers placed viatica and fusca together in his section of Sphex with “abdomen subsessili” (pp. 229-254) [i.e., including pompilids] but placed hirsuta Scopoli-a sphecid believed by Townes to be viatica—in the section “abdomine petiolato” [i.e., including sphecids]. (d) Richards, 1935 : 165.—‘‘The type of Sphex viatica Linnaeus, 1758 is preserved in his collection at Burlington House. It is a female of Podalonia hirsuta (Scopoli, 1763). Linnaeus himself says the insect preys on caterpillars, so there is no excuse for using ‘viatica’ as the specific name of a Psammocharid”. 1Mail address: c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (e) Pate, 1946 : 126.—Repeated the biological note and part of the descrip- tion of Linnaeus, 1758, and commented: “These features are certainly not characteristics ofa spider wasp. Anexamination of the figures, and the accounts as well, of Frisch, Degeer, and others cited by Linnaeus in 1758 and also in his earlier and later works show a wasp that is undubitably a Sphecoid rather than a Psammocharid”’. (f) Verhoeff, 1947 : 334-6.—The “type” accepted by Richards does not agree with the Linnaean description. S. viatica in Linnaeus (1758) “was founded on the common pompilid ‘‘abdomine subsessile, cingulis nigris” of which Frisch gave an unmistakable figure”. Also, ““both the description and the figure of Frisch 1721: p. 11, Tab. 1 f. 13, placed in the synonymy in Linnaeus in 1758, fully agree with the black-banded pompilid’’. (g) Wan der Vecht, 1958 : 47.—Agreed with Verhoeff that the Linnaean specimen referred to by Richards should not be regarded as the type because it does not agree with the Linnaean description. The original (1758) was mixed, restriction to one species is necessary, and “this can only be done by selecting one of the syntypes to be the lectotype”. No specimen being known to visit, hence “I therefore select this figure (no. XIII (c) of Tab. I of vol. 2 of J. L. Frisch .. . 1721) as the lectotype of Sphex viatica Linné, 1758”. (h) Townes, 1973 : 91-96.—Review of the whole problem. Sphex viatica was based on a “mixed series”. Linnaeus’ 1758 diagnosis “‘seems to apply to the psammocharid, his statement on biology applies to the sphecid, while of his four references to previous descriptions it appears that the two he himself authored (1746 and 1756) apply to the sphecid, one by Frisch (1721) applies to the psammocharid, and one by Ray (1710) applies to the sphecid’’. Linnaeus (1761) was the first reviser, or if not so considered because of some residual confusion carried over from 1758, then de Villers (1789) “‘is indisputably a revisor, and would be the first revisor if Linnaeus 1761 is not accepted as such”. Van der Vecht (1958) “was not free to act as he did”’ both because his lectotype was not in agreement with the first reviser and because Richards had already designated a lectotype; either of these reasons “would be sufficient to invalidate his action”. Townes’ conclusion: The name viatica must be applied to the sphecid known as Podalonia hirsuta (Scopoli, 1763). From this history, several questions emerge, as discussed in the following paragraphs. 4. Was Sphex viatica Linnaeus, 1758, based on a “mixed series”? It is interesting to note here the positive but diametrically opposed opinions of specialists: the “indubitably a Sphecoid rather than a Psammocharid” of Pate (1946) contrasted with Verhoeff’s equally positive statements about Frisch’s “unmistakable figure” and “‘both the description and the figure of Frisch, 1721... fully agree with the black-banded pompilid’’. However, both van der Vecht (1958) and Townes (1973), who are opposite sides of the argument of identity, agree that when one considers the total picture—Linnaeus’ description, his citation, and his statement of the biology—one must conclude that viatica Linnaeus was a mixture of a sphecid and a pompilid. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161 First reviser vs. lectotype designation 5. What is the standing of a first reviser compared to lectotype designation by a later author? If one were to agree that either Linnaeus (1761) or de Villers (1789) was the first reviser, as claimed by Townes, does that action take precedence over the much later designation of a lectotype by Richards (1935) or van der Vecht (1958)? Townes insisted that we must follow the action of the first reviser and that a lectotype designated later has no standing unless it agrees with the action (restriction) of the first reviser, hence van der Vecht “‘was not free to act as he did’’, Unfortunately, Townes made no mention of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, under which a lectotype is not required to agree with the action of a first reviser. Such agreement is only a recommendation (cf. Art. 74a.i and Rec. 74A). In principle I agree with Townes, and at the London Colloquium on Nomenclature I argued strongly that a lectotype should be required to be consistent with a previous valid restric- tion or valid successive restrictions. However the vote was against that position, and the best I could achieve was Recommendation 74A. In terms of the Code, therefore, the answer is clear: So long as no reviser had designated a lectotype, any later author was free to do so, and the first publication of a valid designation then fixed the status of the specimen (Art. 74a.i) no matter whether it agreed or disagreed with the action of the reviser(s). 6. Incidentally, I question that de Villers was “indisputably a revisor”, as Townes has claimed. Sphex viatica is still in the group with “abdomine subsessili”, and the Latin description is, except for addition of the single word “pubescens’’, identical with that of 1758, as is the biological note. More citations are given in the synonymy than in 1758, but the figure of Frisch, which both van der Vecht and Townes agree applies to the pompilid, is still cited under viatica. If Linnaeus (1761) can be questioned because it is “‘without elimination of some of the previous confusion” (Townes, 1973 : 92), then de Villers (1789 must surely be questionable on the same basis. Lectotype Designation 7. Two different authors, Richards (1935) and van der Vecht (1958), are involved in the question of lectotype designation, the former having chosen a sphecid, the latter a figure which, at least as agreed by Townes, Verhoeff, and van der Vecht, is of a pompilid. If both had dealt with true syntypes, then the first designation would hold. However, the Richards “‘designation’”’ is, I believe, open to challenge, on possibly two grounds. 8. Nomenclaturally, Richards’ publication raises a question that is not coy- ered in the Code. He cited “the type” but the introduction to his paper and his practice throughout it make it obvious that “type” meant the single specimen standing in the Linnaean collection and presumed to be the holotype, rather than a conscious designation of a lectotype from two or more syntypes.* True lectotype designation, even if it used the word “type” rather than “‘lecto- type”, should take cognizance of the existence or possible existence of syntypes, and should clearly choose one over the others. Mere reference to a single *Professor Richards has recently stated emphatically, in a letter to van der Vecht, that it was not his intention to designate the specimens in the Linnaean collection as lectotypes. 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature specimen now existing in a certain collection as the presumed ‘“‘type”’ is not in itself true lectotype designation. Must one accept a presumed (holo) type in the face of proof that the species was actually based on a series of syntypes? Must Richards’ “type” be recognized ? 9. Onpractical grounds, Richards’ “type” can be questioned in another way. As the question in paragraph 3d shows, Richards accepted as “the type of Sphex viatica’”’ a sphecid in the Linnaean collection in London, noted the bio- logical item in the original description, and concluded “‘so there is no excuse for using ‘viatica’ as the specific name of a Psammocharid”. However, in giving great weight to the biological note, he ignored the fact that the specimen did not agree with Linnaeus’ original description. In view of the admittedly uncertain origin and validity of some specimens in the Linnaean collection, as in all very old collections, one may with considerable justification doubt that the “viatica’” now existing in the collection was truly an original specimen, inasmuch as it clearly does not agree with the original description. [If this is “proof” that it was not a syntype, then Richards’ designation would be invalid (Art. 74a). 10. Van der Vecht (1958) unquestionably dealt with an originally included specimen, via a cited figure: He designated the Frisch figure cited in Linnaeus’ original publication of viatica, and such a designation “is to be treated as designation of the specimen represented by the figure” (Art. 74b), and this is counted as one of the syntypes if the figure was part of the basis of the nominal taxon (Art. 73c). Townes maintained that van der Vecht “‘was not free to act as he did”’ because (1) his lectotype did not agree with the action of the first reviser, and (2) Richards’ “‘designation” was prior. However, under the Code, Townes’ first objection falls, and the second objection may not hold depending on interpretation (cf. paragraphs 8 and 9, preceeding). Van der Vecht con- cluded that no previous author had validly selected a lectotype, and he proceeded to do so. Conclusions 11. The question of mixed series, more properly a matter for specialists to decide, seems to be answered satisfactorily by the weight of recent opinion among specialists. On the question of lectotype vs. first reviser, the Code makes it clear that a lectotype is not required to agree with the action of a first reviser, and that designation of a valid lectotype takes precedence. Accor- dingly, the question of whether Linnaeus’ 1761, or de Villers 1789, was or was not a reviser is irrelevant and not critical to the problem. 12. With reference to lectotype designation, however, the Commission is asked to decide two questions for the general guidance of taxonomists: a. Does mere reference to or listing of a single available primary type- specimen as the “type” or the “holotype”, without evidence of consideration of the existence or possible existence of syntypes, constitute lectotype desig- nation? b. Does fundamental disagreement between the morphological characters of a specimen that is possibly a syntype and the original description of the same life stage constitute grounds for rejection of that specimen as a syntype? Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163 13. Finally, in the present case, the Commission is asked to decide what is the lectotype of Sphex viatica Linnaeus, 1758, and to place that specific name, in the correct form viaticus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. LITERATURE CITED Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae. ed. 10 — 1761. Fauna Svyecica. ed. 2 Pate, V. S. L. 1946. The generic names of the spider wasps (Psammocharidae olim Pompilidae) and other type species (Hymenoptera: Aculeata). Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc. 72 : 65-137 RicHarDs, O. W. 1935. Notes on the nomenclature of the aculeate Hymenoptera, with special reference to British genera and species. Trans. Roy. Entomol. Soc. London 83 : 143-176 Townes, H. 1973. The type of Sphex viatica Linnaeus (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae). Polskie Pismo Entomol. 43 : 91-96 VAN DER VECHT, J. 1958. The identity of Sphex viatica Linné, 1758 (Hymenoptera, Pompilidae). Entomol. Berichten 18 : 47-48 VERHOEFF, P. M. F. 1947. Sphex viatica Linné, 1758 = Anoplius viaticus (L.) (Hym. Pomp.). Tijdschr. Entomol. (1945) 88 : 334-336 DE VILLERS, C. J. 1789. Caroli entomologia... Vol. 3 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PLEA FOR THE CONSERVATION OF APHIS PYRI BOYER DE FONSCOLOMBE, 1841 AND THE SUPPRESSION OF APHIS PYRI VALLOT, 1802, APHIS PYRI KITTEL, 1827 AND SEVEN OTHER BINOMINALS PROPOSED BY KITTEL IN 1827. Z.N.(S.) 2062 By V. F. Eastop (British Museum (Natural History) London S.W.7) This application concerns an aphid name for illustrations published by Réaumur (1737) proposed by Vallot (1802) and never subsequently referred to in aphid literature. This name antedates that of a pest species, Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841, the pear-bedstraw aphid, now known as Dysaphis pyri (Boyer de Fonscolombe). Kittel (1827) proposed a binomen, Aphis pyri but Kittel’s names in that paper have been ignored by aphid workers until recently because they were thought to be invalid (Hille Ris Lambers 1939, Temminckia 4 : 2), as Kittel did not use binominals consistently. If accepted, several of Kittel’s names would preoccupy the currently accepted names of well known species. 1. Réaumur (1737, Mem. serv. Hist. Ins., Paris, vol. 3, mem. 9 plate 24 figs 1 & 2) figured a rolled pear leaf and an aphid. Figure 5 on the same plate is of a leaf edge gall on apple. The pear aphid is probably the species now called Dysaphis reaumuri (Mordvilko) and the apple gall was probably caused by Dysaphis devecta (Walker) or a close relative. 2. De Geer (1773, Mem. Hist. Ins. 3 : 53-55) describes Aphis pomi, a pest of apples still called Aphis pomi De Geer and about which there has been no subsequent confusion. 3. Vallot (1802, Concordance Systématique . . . ouvrage de Réaumur, Paris, p. 94) proposes the name Aphis pyri for figures 1 & 2 of plate 24 of Réaumur (1737). He also (ibid. p. 95) proposes Aphis pomi as a name for figure 5 but this name is preoccupied by Aphis pomi De Geer. 4. Kittel (1827, Sur les Pucerons, suivi de la description de quelques espéces nouvelles, Mem. Soc. Lin., Paris 5 1826: 133-155) described 13 species of aphids including one living on pear which is named Aphis pyri. Kittel used 5 trinominals and 8 binominals as follows: 1 Aphis aquilegiae nigra, 2 A. aquilegiae flava, 3 A. sonchi pruinosa, 4 A. sonchi viridifurcata, 5 A. hyosciami, 6 A. pyri, 7 A. solani, 8 A. piperis, 9 A. epilobii, 10 A. scirpi, 11 A. morae, 12 A. lavaterae, 13 A. salicis minor. If accepted 6, 7, 9 and 10 would preoccupy the currently accepted names of well known species, one of which is the glasshouse-potato aphid. 5. Boyer de Fonscolobe (1841, Ann. ent. Soc. France 10 : 189-190) des- cribed Aphis pyri as a new species, and this as Dysaphis pyri is the currently accepted name of the pear-bedstraw aphid. 6. Kaltenbach (1843, Mon. fam. Pflanzenlduse, pp. 15 & 64) describes Aphis solani and A. epilobii respectively. Aphis epilobii is the currently accepted name for a common aphid on Epilobium and Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach) is the glasshouse-potato aphid and is known to transmit at least 38 virus diseases. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165 7. Passerini (1874, Bul. ent. Soc. ital. 6 : 137) described Toxoptera scirpi a widespread European species subsequently known as Schizaphis scirpi (Passerini) and probably the species which Kittel (1827) described as Aphis scirpi. 8. Bérner (1952, Mitt. Thiiring, Bot. Ges. 4(3)) accepted Kittel’s names and used them to preoccupy or replace well known names. 9. If Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802 were accepted it would replace Dysaphis reaumuri (Mordvilko) and would preoccupy Dysaphis pyri (Boyer de Fons- colombe, 1841) which would require a new name. The application of the binomen Dysaphis pyri to a different species of Aphid could only cause con- fusion as it would often be impossible to tell in which sense the name was being used. 10. The Kittel (1827) names (paragraph 4 of this application) are not re- quired for any species, and his species are difficult to recognise. At least one of them, Aphis solani, is probably not an aphid, so if accepted could become available for a member of another family, causing confusion there. If accepted, four of Kittel’s binominals Aphis pyri, solani, epilobii and scirpi would pre- occupy the names currently used for well known aphids. The names had not been used prior to 1952 as it was thought that they were invalid because the author did not consistently use binominals. 11. The Commission is asked to conserve the name Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 and to suppress the name Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802. 12. The Commission is also asked to suppress the names proposed by Kittel (1827) as the author did not consistently use binominals, and because if they were to be accepted they would require changes in the names of two well known pests, Aulacorthum solani (Kltb.) and Dysaphis pyri (B.d.F.) and in two other well known aphids, Aphis epilobii K\tb. and Schizaphis scirpi (Passerini). Therefore the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name pyri Vallot 1802, as published in the binomen Aphis pyri, for the purposes of the Law of Priority and for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to declare that the work Kittel, 1827, Sur les Pucerons, suivi de la des- cription de quelques espéces nouvelles. Mémoires de la Société Linéene de Paris, volume 5, 1826: 133-155, is not available for the purposes of zoological nomenclature by reason of the fact that the author did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomen- clature therein; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841, as published in the binomen Aphis pyri; (4) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) pyri Vallot, 1802, as published in the binomen Aphis pyri; (b) the following names published by Kittel, 1827: Aphis aquilegiae nigra page 148. Aphis aquilegiae flava page 148. 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Aphis sonchi pruinosa page 149. Aphis sonchi viridifurcata page 149. Aphis hyosciami page 149. Aphis pyri page 150. Aphis solani page 151. Aphis piperis page 152. Aphis epilobii page 152. Aphis scirpi page 153. Aphis morae page 153. Aphis lavaterae page 154. Aphis salicis minor page 154. (5) to place the following work on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology: Kittel, 1827. Sur les Pucerons, suivi de la des- cription de quelques espéces nouvelles. Mémoires de la Société Linnéenne de Paris volume 5 1826: 133-155. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Honorary Life President The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) B. The Members of the Trust The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C., C.H. Mon. J. Forest Col. Frances J. Griffin, O.B.E. (Secretary and Managing Director) Dr. N. E. Hickin Dr. L. B. Holthuis Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Mr. R. V. Melville Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright, C.B. Dr. G. F. de Witte C. The Officers of the Trust Margaret Green, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Opinions Opinion 1019 (Byrsocrypta Haliday, 1838) ics Opinion 1020 (Pleuroacanthites Canavari, 1883) ... Opinion 1021 (Clinus aculeatus Reinhardt, 1837) ... Opinion 1022 (Ctenodonta elongata Salter, 1873) ... Opinion 1023 (CASsIDAE & CASSIDINAE) Opinion 1024 (Epirhexis Cope, 1866) 5 eee Opinion 1025 (Salamandra tigrina Green, 1825) RS New Cases Request for the suppression of Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia) (P. J. Boylan & M.A.Green) ... Cicada cingulata (Fabricius) var. obscura Hudson, 1891 ‘(Insecta, Homoptera): proposed suppression as a nomen oblitum(C. A. Fleming & J. S. Dugdale)... Hymenosoma laeve Targioni Tozzetti, 1877 (Crustacea, Brachyura): proposed suppression under the plenary powers (J. S. Lucas) Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837 (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae): proposed suppres- sion under the plenary powers in order to conserve Leptinotarsa Stal, 1854 (Richard E. White & Richard L. Jacques) ... Dactylopius Costa, 1835 and Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, ‘Homop- tera): proposed designation of type-species under the plenary powers with proposed suppression of Diaprosteci Costa, 1828 (Douglass R. Miller) Coccus sativus Lancry, 1791, Coccus mexicanus Lamarck, 1801 and Coccus silvestris Lancry, 1791 (Insecta, Homoptera): panes Sey under the plenary powers (Giovanni De Lotto) Conus moluccensis (Mollusca, Gastropoda): request for 2 a a ruling on the author- ship (Walter O. Cernohorsky) .. 3 Sphex viatica Linnaeus: a problem of types and revisers (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae or Pompilidae) (Curtis Sabrosky) =a 117 121 123 125 127 130 133 135 CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper) Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841: plea for conservation; Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802, Aphis pyri Kittel, 1827 and seven other binominals ae or by Kittel in 1827: proposed suppression (V. F. Eastop) 3 Comments Comment on the conservation of Dictyonema flabelliforme (Eichwald, ee (Graptolithina) by designation of a neotype (A. M. Obut) Comment in support of a proposal by N. D. Riley and L. G. Higgins on Papilio actaeon Fabricius, 1775 v. sts acteon von Rottemburg, 1775 (Lee D. Miller) . Comment on the proposed validation of. CYMATIIDAE . Iredale, 1913 (R. V. Melville) .. : Further comment on Ghanda Ham. Buch., Hamiltouia ‘Swainson, and their type-species (P. J. Whitehead, P. H. Greenwood and E. Trewavas) as Comment on Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936 (Nematoda): application for protection under the plenary powers (Henning Lemche; P. A. A. Loof) ae Comment on the requested confirmation of type-species for Donacilla De Blainville, 1819 and Amphidesma Lamarck, 1818 (Bivalvia) (R. V. Melville) Comment on Palaeofavosites Twenhofel, 1914 (Anthozoa, Tabulata): proposed validation under the plenary powers (Klemens Oekentorp) Proponents comment on effect of Article 29(d) on the application for correction of certain names on the Official List of Family Group names (George C. Steyskal) .. Comment on proposal to suppress " Pterodactylus crassipes Meyer, 1857 and counter-proposal to recognize Archaeopteryx Ee Meyer, 1861, and to fix its type-species (Eugene Eisenmann) es Comment on Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda, Enoplida), a request for suppression; Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 on for Official List (R. V. Melville) : Comments on the proposed designation of a “type-species “for Cerithium Bruguiére, [1789] (Walter Cernohorsky) Comment on the proposal to place Leucospis gigas Fabricius, 1793 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (B. D. Burks) . © 1974. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshire Page 164 104 104 105 107 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 116 Volume 31, Part 4 31st December, 1974 pp. 167-265, 2 pls., T.P. I-IX 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 Eiahed in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .. ine ‘ Pe an aA ae Gy Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases os re ieee LOT (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 (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD 1974 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. W. D. L. Ripe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Secretary: Mr. R. V. MELVILLE (c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) (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 Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). Opisthobranchia; Phylogeny Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960). Echinoidea, Asteroidea Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962). Mollusca Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mollusca Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithology; Evolution Prof. Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. W. D. L. Rwwe (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia 6000) (28 August 1963) (President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SABROsKy (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Diptera; Systematics Professor George Gaylord Simpson (The Simroe Foundation, 5151 E. Holmes Street, Tucson, Arizona 85711, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mammalia Dr. Eugene EIsENMANN (American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, U.S.A.) (30 January 1968). Ornithology Mr. R. V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (30 January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology : Dr. Y. I. SraRroBsoGATOv (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea Professor F. M. BAYER (Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972). Octocorallia; Systematics Dr. John O. Coruiss (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972). Protozoa; Systematics Prof. Dr. H. K. Ersen (Institut fiir Paléontologie, Universitdt Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology Professor T. Hase (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972). Marine Biology Mr. David HeppeLt (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH11JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972). Mollusca Dr. I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) (20 February 1972). Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Jnstituto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. B. B. ROHDENDORE (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) (21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology Prof. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). Lepidoptera Dr. C. Dupuis (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). Diptera BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 31, Part 4 (pp. 167-265, T.P. I-IX, Pls & II) 31st December 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) Validation of Aglaja Renier, 1807, Aglaja depicta Renier, 1807 and Aglaja tricolorata Renier, 1807 (Mollusca, Opisthobranchia). Z.N.(S.) 1092. *(2) Suppression of Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 1746. *(3) Suppression of Parnalius Rafinesque, 1815 (Insecta, Rhopalocera) Z.N.(S.) 1884. *(4) Suppression of Calomicrus taeniatus Wollaston, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2012. *(5) Suppression of Xiphidium glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838 and Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838 (Insecta, Grylloptera). Z.N.(S.) 2060. (6) Designation of a type-species for Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2063. *(7) Validation of Echis coloratus Giinther, 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes). Z.N.(S.) 2064. (8) Suppression of Heterodera urticae Pogosyan, 1962 (Nematoda) Z.N.(S.) 2066. (9) Suppression of Thrips rufa Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Thysanoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2067. *(10) Suppression of Phloeotrogus Motschulsky, 1863 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2069. *(11) Suppression of Anodius Motschulsky, 1860 (Insecta, Coleoptera, sCOL- YTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2070. *(12) Suppression of Leiparthrum Wollaston, 1854 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2071. A 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature *(13) Suppression of Olonthogaster Motschulsky, 1866 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2072. *(14) Suppression of Cardium boreale Broderip & Sowerby, 1829 (Mollusca: Bivalvia CARDIIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2073. (15) Suppression of Plyctolophus ducrops Bonaparte, 1850 (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 2074. (16) Designation of type-species for Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 and Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera, HYDROPHILIDAE). Z.NAS.) 2075. (17) Validation of Pseudoboa nigra (Duméril Bibron and Duméril, 1854) (Reptilia, Serpentes). Z.N.(S.) 2077. (18) Designation of type-species of Platyrhacus Koch, 1847 (Diplopoda). Z.N.(S.) 2078. (19) Rejection of all usages of THRAUPIDAE, prior to that of Wetmore & Miller (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 1980. (20) Striglina Guenée, 1877 to be given precedence over Daristane Walker, 1859 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2025. (21) Designation of Hydrophorus binotatus Fallén, 1823 as type-species of Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823. Z.N.(S.) 2036. (c) Withdrawn cases——The following cases have been withdrawn recently with the authors’ consent: UNPUBLISHED CASES (1) Sirex niger Harris, 1780 (Hymenoptera): proposed neotype. (2) Ateleptera Dalman, 1823 (Insecta, Mecoptera): proposed addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum. Z.N.(S.) 1990. (3) Thripsaphis producta Gillette, 1917 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of a lectotype under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2050. PUBLISHED CASES (1) Request for a Declaration against the suppression of nomina dubia. Z.N.(S.) 1715. (Bull.zool.Nomencl.22: 265-266) (2) Proposed rejection of Giraffa camelopardalis australis Rhoads, 1896. Z.N.(S.) 1942. (Bull.28: 100-101; see note Bul/.31: 171) (3) Expansion of Article 11(g)(i)(4) of the Code to include provision for adjectival genitives, the form of which is the same as the nominative. Z.NAS.) 1969. (Bull.29: 135-136) (4) Cryphalus Erichson, 1836 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1788. (Bull.24: 121-122; see note 31: 171) (5) Code amendments for consideration at Monaco. Z.N.(S.) 1995. (Bull.29: 79-91) (6) Six proposed amendments to the Code for discussion at Monaco. Z.N.AS.) 2005. (Bull.29: 99-101) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169 (d) Change of serial number: The application entitled ““Phagocata cornuta Shishkov, 1903 (Platyhelminthes: Turbellaria): request for suppression under the plenary powers”’ has now been given the serial number Z.N.(S.) 2079. (Bull. 31 : 62). The application entitled ‘“Dactylopius Costa, 1835 and Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of type-species under the plenary powers with proposed suppression of Diaprosteci Costa, 1828” has been given the serial number Z.N.(S.) 2091. (Bull. 31 : 146). c/o British Museum (Natural History), MARGARET GREEN Cromwell Road, Scientific Assistant London, SW7 SBD, England International Commission on August 1974 Zoological Nomenclature 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PALUDINA LUSTRICA SAY, 1821. Z.N.(S.) 730 (See volume 18, pages 146-148, 379) By Fred G. Thompson (Florida State Museum, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.) The persistence of the name Paludina lustrica Say, 1821 continues to pose serious problems in molluscan nomenclature. H. B. Baker, in his proposal to suppress Paludina lustrica Say, Z.N.(S.) 730, gave a detailed history of the name Paludina lustrica Say and the effects it would have on molluscan nomenclature if the name were retained as valid. Salient points in Baker’s proposal are: (1) The name Paludina lustrica Say, 1821 is a nomen dubium. Various attempts have been made to place it in four genera, viz. Lyogyrus Gill, 1863; Amnicola Gould and Haldeman, 1841; Pommatiopsis Tryon, 1862; and Marstonia F. C. Baker, 1926. (2) Recognition of Paludina lustrica Say as a valid name would make it the type species of Amnicola Gould and Haldeman, 1840 by Haldeman’s designation (July, 1840; Monogr. Limn. N. Amer., 1:3 and inside back cover). Gould, 1841 (Rept. Invert. Mass.: 228-230) and Haldeman (1845, Monogr. Limn. N. Amer.: 8) recognized Amnicola Gould and Haldeman from Gould, 1841. They included in the genus, Paludina porata Say, 1821 and Paludina limosa Say, 1817 and only dubiously included Paludina lustrica Say, 1821. Hermannsen (1846, Indices Gen. Malacoz. Primordia, 1 : 38) designated Paludina porata Say, 1821 as the type of Amnicola. Most sub- sequent authors have accepted Herrmannsen’s type designation. (3) Recognition of Paludina lustrica Say as a valid name would make it the type species of Amnicola by Haldeman’s designation and would make Amnicola lustrica (Say) a senior secondary homonym of Amnicola lustrica Pilsbry, 1890. Amnicola lustrica Pilsbry is the type species of Marstonia F. C. Baker, 1926, a genus distinct from Amnicola and in a different subfamily. Marstonia lustrica (Pilsbry) is a well known species widely distributed in north central North America. Nomenclatural stability is desirable. Separately, Taylor and Gregg (Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 18 : 379) opposed suppres- sion of the name Paludina lustrica Say on the basis that Taylor (Taylor, D. W., 1960; Late Cenozoic molluscan faunas from the High Plains: U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 337 : 49-50) believes Say’s species to be a senior synonym of Amnicola walkeri Pilsbry, 1898. Taylor contends that Say’s description of Paludina lustrica is detailed enough to identify it with Amnicola walkeri Pilsbry. E. G. Berry (1943; Misc. Pub. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, no. 57 : 26) demonstrates on the basis of reproductive anatomy that Amnicola walkeri Pilsbry is related to Paludina limosa Say, 1817 (presently con- sidered a senior subjective synonym of Paludina porata Say, 1821), the generally accepted type species of Amnicola. Taylor and Gregg argue that recognition of Paludina lustrica Say as the type species of Amnicola would not result in a change in our concept of the genus. Since then new data supporting the proposal by Baker have come to light. (A) Paludina lustrica Say is a nomen dubium. The identity of the name Paludina lustrica Say is not unequivocal as Taylor (1960) contends. Within the family Hydro- biidae, with which Paludina lustrica Say is placed, details of the embryonic whorls, including their diameter and sculpture, are essential for proper generic allocations. Such data are not available in Say’s description (1821; Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila- delphia, 2:75). Furthermore the type of Paludina lustrica Say, 1821 is lost (Baker, H. B., 1964; Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 116 : 174). Designation of a neotype for Paludina lustrica Say would not in the least serve the interests of molluscan syste- matics and nomenclature. (B) Amnicola walkeri Pilsbry is a species of Lyogyrus Gill, 1863, not Amnicola as was previously supposed (see Thompson, F. G., 1968; The Aquatic Snails of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171 Family Hydrobiidae of Peninsular Florida; Univ. Florida Press: 162-163). The generic name Lyogyrus has remained in common use since its inception. Recognition of Paludina lustrica Say as a valid name would (1) make Lyogyrus a junior subjective synonym of Amnicola, (2) it would completely alter our concept of the species com- position of Amnicola, (3) it would leave Paludina porata Say and allied species without an available generic name, and a new name would have to be proposed for this group, and (4) a name change for Marstonia lustrica (Pilsbry) (= Amnicola lustrica Pilsbry) would still be necessary. The six requests made by Baker to the International Commission, Z.N.(S.) 730, are still valid and have additional supportive evidence (paragraph 9, subparagraphs 1-6). I recommend that the International Commission act in favour on Baker’s proposal. Such action will be the only course that will result in nomenclatural stability with regard to this problem. PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR CRYPHALUS ERICHSON, 1836 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1788 By Stephen L. Wood (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A.) This application is withdrawn because a re-examination by the proposer of the syntypes of C. asperatus (Gyllenhal, 1813) showed them to be conspecific with the syntypes of Bostrichus (Cryphalus) abietis Ratzeburg, 1839. The latter name which has been used for a long time as the valid name of a species of Cryphalus, therefore falls as a junior subjective synonym of C. asperatus and stability will be achieved by applying the Law of Priority. Usage of Trypophoeus Fairmaire, 1868 (type-species, by monotypy, Bostrichus (Cryphalus) binodulus Ratzeburg, 1836) is also maintained by this means. WITHDRAWAL OF Z.N.(S.) 1942: THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF GIRAFFA CAMELOPARDALIS AUSTRALIS RHOADS, 1896 (MAMMALIA) By R. V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The applicants in this case (Ansell and Dagg, 1971, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 28 : 100- 101) sought the suppression of Giraffa camelopardalis australis Rhoads, 1896, on the grounds that it was a senior synonym of Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata de Winton, 1899. This latter name has been protected from the threat presented to its stability by the senior homonym Camelopardalis giraffa var. reticulata Weinland, 1863, by the use of the plenary powers in Opinion 944 (1971, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 27 : 222-223) and placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The main purpose of the application was to safeguard the name reticulata de Winton, 1899 for the reticulated giraffe and therefore as this has been done the applicants agree to withdraw the proposal. THRAUPIDAE (AVES): COMMENT ON PROPOSALS. Z.N.(S.) 1976 By H. Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Danmark) Changing the items on the Official Lists and Indexes is a most serious action, as the whole authority of these lists depends on their reliability (or stability). When you look up a certain item to have safe information on its nomenclatorial status, you expect to obtain the correct answer from the list. In the last years, I have con- sidered this problem again and again and am becoming more and more convinced that we must keep the lists stable by all possible means, first and foremost by stating under the plenary powers that priority cannot be claimed to upset an entry or to Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature change any of the particulars concerning an entry. I therefore strongly urge my fellow-Commissioners to vote for the Alternative B which I give below, in the case of THRAUPIDAE, thereby expressly giving that name final stability. Alternative A: (1) to correct entry 428 THRAUPIDAE on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by substituting the given authors and date ‘Wetmore & Miller, 1926’ by the older reference (ex THRAUPINAE) Cabanis, 1847’, the remainder of the proposals to be left unaltered. or Alternative B: (1) Under the plenary powers to reject all earlier usages of the name THRAUPIDAE (or THRAUPINAE) before that of Wetmore & Miller, 1926, the remainder of the proposals to be left unaltered. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS THE SPECIFIC NAME PA YTENSIS LESSON, 1837 (AVES). Z.N.(S.) 1980 By R. V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) This application by Dr. Charles Vaurie seeks the suppression for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, of paytensis (Anthus), Lesson, 1837, so as to preserve a name, Geositta paytae Ménégaux and Hellmayr, 1906. In fact, if the Law of Priority were applied, the Furnariid generally known as Geositta peruviana Lafresnaye, 1847, paytae Ménégaux and Hellmayr, 1906 would become known as Geositta paytensis (Lesson, 1837), peruviana Lafresnaye, 1847. The application is supported by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen- clature of the International Ornithological Congress. The case is not a simple matter of suppressing an overlooked senior synonym, because the combination Geositta paytensis (Lesson, 1837) has been used three times by one author in the last twenty years. During this period, the combination Geositta peruviana Lafresnaye, 1847, paytae Ménégaux and Hellmayr has been used twice by one author, according to Dr. Vaurie’s application. In the circumstances, the Commission requires more evidence of the predominant current use of one name in preference to the other, and of the extent of disturbance to stability of nomenclature that would be caused by applying the Law of Priority es it now has, before it can decide whether or not to use its plenary powers in this case. CHANGE IN THE PROPOSALS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PHAROPTERYX BENOIT RUPPELL, 1852 (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1981 (See vol. 29 : 39-40; 30 : 140-141) By E. Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) I should like the Commission to consider the following proposals when they vote on the application on Pharopteryx benoit Riippel, 1852. (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name kleinenbergi Giglioli, 1889, as published in the binomen Eretmophorus kleinenbergi is to be given precedence over the unused senior synonym benoit Riippell, 1852, as published in the binomen Pharopteryx benoit, by any zoologist who considers that the two names refer to the same species-group taxon; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) kleinenbergi Giglioli, 1889, as published in the binomen Eretmophorus kleinenbergi, with the endorsement that this name is to be given priority over Pharopteryx benoit Riippell, 1852, by any zoologist who considers that the two names refer to the same species-group taxon; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173 (b) benoit Riippell, 1852, as published in the binomen Pharopteryx benoit, with the endorsement that this name is not to be used in preference to kleinenbergi Giglioli, 1889 by any zoologist who considers that the two names refer to the same species-group taxon. COMMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL ON THE CONSERVATION OF STRIGLINA GUENEE, 1877. Z.N.(S.) 2025 (See volume 30, pages 61-62) By P. E. S. Whalley (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 5BD) Dr. I. W. B. Nye has shown me his comments (1974, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 30: 140-141) on the above case. The object of my application as summarized in the title is to conserve the generic name Striglina Guénée, 1877. Whether it is preferable to do this by placing Striglina on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, thereby giving it precedence now and in the future over all other names for this taxon: or whether it is preferable to place its unused senior subjective synonym Daristane Walker, 1859, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, is an important technicality on which the Commission should provide guidance for this and similar cases. In addition, my original proposals were incomplete since they did not provide for the placing of Striglina on the Official List. They should therefore be completed by adding: (3) to place the generic name Striglina Guénée, 1877 (gender: feminine), type- species, by subsequent designation by Whalley, 1964, Striglina lineola Guénée, 1877, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (4) place the specific name scitaria Walker, 1862.1 as published in the binomen Drepanodes scitaria, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Pending the resolution by the Commission of the general point mentioned above, I therefore now put forward two alternative proposals: either (A) my original pro- posals as expanded herein; or (B): (1) to rule under the plenary powers that the generic name Striglina Guénée, 1877, is to be given precedence over the generic name Daristane Walker, 1859, by any zoologist who considers those names to apply to a single genus; (2), (3), consequential Official List action for Striglina and its type-species, as under (A); repeating the endorsement under (1); (4) to place the generic name Daristane Walker, 1859 (gender: feminine), type- species, by monotypy, Daristane tibiaria Walker, 1859, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is not to be used to displace Striglina Guénée, 1877; (5) to place the specific name fibiaria Walker, 1859, as published in the binomen Daristane tibiaria, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. COMMENTS ON AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FOR THE PROPOSAL (Z.N.(S.) 2036) TO CONSERVE H¥YDROPHORUS FALLEN AND TO SUPPRESS THE DESIGNATION BY MACQUART OF HYDROPHORUS JACULUS FALLEN AS TYPE SPECIES By John A. Hendrickson, Jr. and Selwyn S. Roback (Department of Limnology, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa., 19103, U.S.A.) INTRODUCTION ; : We agree with Steyskal, ef al. (1973) that it is in the interest of taxonomic clarity 1 Walker, F., 1862, List of specimens of lepidopterous Insects in the collection of the British Museum, vol. 26, p. 1488. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and continuity to suppress all previous designations of a type species for Hydrophorus Fallén and to conserve Hydrophorus Fallén with one of the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th of the originally included species as the type species. We disagree with that proposal in doubting the applicability of Article 70(a) of the Code and in following an earlier suggestion that Hydrophorus binotatus Fallén, 1823 be designated as the type species. We present further evidence which clarifies the history of the applications of the name Hydrophorus Fallén. Finally, we present an alternative request for action by the Commission, including application for action under the plenary powers alone. IDENTITY OF THE TYPE SPECIES Meigen (1824) was the first compiler and reviser to use the work of Fischer (1819), Lehmann (1822) and Fallén (1823). Macquart (1827) could have (on the basis of included species, spellings, descriptions, and bibliographic citations) worked solely from Meigen (1824) with no reference to work by Fischer, Lehmann and Fallén. Meigen (1824) did not indicate by name a type species for Medeterus Fischer, (for ease in citing historic usage, we use the spelling provided by Meigen, rather than Medetera, which is the correct name) nor did he indicate that Fischer’s genus was monotypic, nor did he provide Fischer’s specific name for the species Fischer described and illustrated. Meigen listed M. regius (Fabr.) [Musca] (with a dorsal arista) first in his treatment of Medeterus and provided two illustrations of that species (of six illustrations for the genus). (Two other illustrations are of antennae of unnamed species, and both have the arista distinctly dorsal. A fifth illustration is of M. notatus (Fabr.) [Musca], which also has the arista dorsal. The remaining illustration of a frontal view of the head of an unnamed species is consistent with modern species having the arista dorsal). Macquart (1827) placed 12 species from Meigen (1824) in the genera Hydrophorus and Medeterus; of these, 9 have the arista dorsal. Finally, Macquart (1827 and 1834) listed H. jaculus first in Hydrophorus and M. regius first in Medeterus. Thus Macquart’s separation of Hydrophorus (with arista apical) based on Hydro- Phorus jaculus Fallén was reasonable if he assumed (as seems likely) that Medeterus regius (Fabr.) was the type species of Medeterus Fischer. Two additional lines of evidence (a and b) corroborate this view. (a) Macquart (1827) assigned 4 species to Hydrophorus, three of which clearly have the arista apical (see below under designation of a new type species), and he assigned 16 species to Medeterus, 15 of which have the arista dorsal. There are no citations of specimens determined by Macquart (1827) as H. jaculus which have subsequently been listed in the synonymies of species with the arista dorsal (fide Kertesz, 1909, Lundbeck, 1912, Parent, 1938). (b) Macquart (1834) continued to use the same states of the same character to separate the genera Hydrophorus and Medeterus. Meigen (1838) noted the variation of arista placement, but regarded Hydrophorus as a weak segregate of Medeterus. Zetterstedt (1840, et seq.) treated Medeterus as a subgenus of Hydrophorus, although (1843 : 448, footnote 1) he bemoans the fact that if the latter genus were split, the name Hydrophorus would go to wholly terrestrial species, while it would be an apt name for the species frequenting water (the ““modern” concept). The foregoing strongly suggest that Macquart did not misidentify the material he regarded as belonging to Hydrophorus jaculus. Therefore, application of Article 70(a) is inappropriate. ORIGIN AND STABILITY OF THE “MODERN CONCEPT” OF HYDROPHORUS The next 15 years of literature (1844-1858) show various uses of the two generic names, Hydrophorus and Medeterus. Wahlberg (1844) is given credit (Haliday, 1851, Steyskal, et al., 1973) for the first use of Hydrophorus in the modern concept; however his descriptions of two new species (one in Hydrophorus, one in Medeterus) make no mention of the placement of the arista. Haliday (1851) cites Wahlberg (1844) as the source of his concept of Hydrophorus as having the arista dorsal. Loew Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175 (1857) follows (Haliday (1851) in) Walker as the source of his concept of Hydrophorus, from which he segregates two new genera. Loew seems to have recognized (1857) that Medeterus Fischer had been monotypic. Walker (1858), following either Mac- quart, Meigen, Zetterstedt, or Walker (1849) described two new species, (now in the HYDROPHORINAE) with dorsal aristas in Medeterus. Perris (1849 or 1850) segregated a new genus, Apfrozeta, with two included species, both new, from Medeterus (sensu Macquart and Meigen), and the arista is dorsal in this genus. In general, Loew (1857) has been followed by most subsequent entomological authors. We offer three brief quotes to suggest the tenacity of modern dipterists in applying Loew’s concept of Hydrophorus. Aldrich (1911) notes, “The genus Hydrophorus, established by Fallén in 1823, as limited by Loew in 1857, as generally used since and as herein understood, com- prises those flies ...””. Collin (1940 : 268) says of Hydrophorus Fin., ““This well-known name is in danger of suppression.... One cannot under these circumstances too strongly urge that the Zoological Commission be requested to place Hydrophorus Flin. with type H. binotatus Fin. (= bipunctatus Lehm.) on the reserved list of generic names”. Cole (1969 : 279) states, ‘‘. .. Coquillett . . . stated Hydrophorus of authors equals Aphrozeta Perris (1850). We do not accept this interpretation but follow Aldrich, Becker, and others”’. Further, the most commonly used key for the identification of immature aquatic stages of dipterans (Johannsen, 1935) provides the determination ‘‘Hydrophorus agalma” in one of the few couplets within the DoLICHOPoDIDAE. Perhaps not all specimens determined as such are indeed in Hydrophorus, but the name is in general use by aquatic entomologists. DESIGNATION OF A NEW TYPE SPECIES If the plenary powers are applied to suppress Macquart’s designation of Hydro- phorus jaculus Fallén, 1823 as the type species of Hydrophorus Fallén (and all other designations prior to such a ruling), only three originally included species seem to be suitable candidates for such designation: H. binotatus Fallén, 1823, H. litoreus Fallén, 1823 and H. nebulosus Fallén, 1823. Steyskal, et al. (1973) suggest H. nebulosus Fallén, as being a distinctive species subject to no prior taxonomic confusion. How- ever, at least two authors (Macquart (1837, 1834) and Neuhaus (1886)) seem to have regarded the arista as (sub ?) apical in this species. Moreover, among western European species, H. nebulosus seems to be aberrant in both the length of the third antennal segment and the pattern of wing spotting (Lundbeck, 1912, and Parent, 1938). Choice of an aberrant species would seem to be inconsistent with future stability of the generic name. The name H. /itoreus Fallén and its junior subjective synonyms have been applied at various times to several modern species. This does not conform to the recom- mendation of an easily recognizable type species. Collin (1940) suggested H. binotatus Fallén for designation as the type species of Hydrophorus Fallén. This species (long regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Hydrophorus bipunctatus (Lehmann, 1822) [Dolichopus]) seems to be representative of several European species, and would thus be a suitable type species for future stability. RECOMMENDATIONS Therefore, in the interests of stability in nomenclature, the commission is requested: (1) to disallow application of Article 70(a) of the code as requested in proposal Z.N.S.) 2036 because there is no evidence supporting the claim of a mis- identified type species; (2) to use its plenary powers to suppress all designations of type species for Hydro- phorus Fallén, 1823 made prior to the requested ruling and to designate Hydrophorus binotatus Fallén, 1823 as the type species of the said genus; (3) to place the generic name Hydrophorus Fallén, 1823 (gender masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Hydrophorus binotatus Fallén, 1823 on the Official List of Generic Names on Zoology; 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (4) to place the specific name bipunctatus Lehmann, 1822 as published in the binomen Dolichopus bipunctatus on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (5) to place the subfamily name* HYDROPHORINAE Lioy, 1864 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES AvpricH, J. M. 1911. A revision of the North American species of the dipterous genus Hydrophorus. Psyche 18 : 45-70, 1 pl. Cote, F. R. 1969. The flies of Western North America. xii+693 pp., Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley Co.tuin, J. E. 1940. Critical notes on some recent synonymy affecting British species of Dolichopodidae (Diptera). Entomol. Mon. Mag. 76 : 261-271 FALLEN, C. F. 1823. Monographia Dolichopodum Sveciae. 22 pp., Lundae. FiscHER [DE WALDHEIM], G. 1819. Notice sur une mouche carnivore, nommé Médétére. Progr. Soc. imp. Natural (Moscou) 15 Dec. 1819 : 5-11, 1 pl. Hauipay, A. H. 1851. Family XXI. Dolichopidae. In Walker, F., et al., Insecta Brittanica. Vol. 1 (= Diptera, Vol. 1): 144-221. London JOHANNSEN, O. A. 1935. Aquatic Diptera. Part If. Orthorrhapha-Brachycera and Cyclorrhapha. N.Y. (Cornell) Agr. Expt. Sta. Mem. 164 : 1-71, 24 pls. Kertesz, C. 1909. Catalogus dipterorum hucusque descriptorum. VI. Empididae, Dolichopodidae, Musidoridae. 362 pp., Budapestini LEHMANN, J. G. C. 1822. Observationes zoologicae praesertim in faunam Ham- burgensem. Pugillus primus. 53 pp., Hamburgi Loew, N. 1857. Neue Beitrage Zur Kenntniss der Dipteren. Srer Beitrag. Progr. Mereritz: 1-56 LunpDBECK, W. 1912. Diptera Danica, Part IV. Dolichopodidae. 416 pp. Copenhagen MacaquartT, J. 1827. Insectes diptéres du nord de la France. Platypézines, Dolicho- podes, Empides, Hybotides. 159 pp., Lille —— 1834. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Dipteres. Tome Premier. 578 pp. and 12 pls., Paris MEIGEN, J. W. 1824. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten Vol. 4, xii + 428 pp., pls. 33-41, Hamn —— 1838. Idem. vol. 7, xii + 434 pp. and pls. 67-74, Hamn NeuHAus, G. H. 1886. Diptera Marchica. Systematisches Verzeichniss der Zweifliiger (Mucken und Fliegen) der Mark Brandenburg, mit kurzer Beschrei- bung und analytischen Bestimmungs-Tabellen. pp. IV + 371, Berlin PARENT, O. 1938. Faune de France. 35. Diptéres Dolichopodidae. 720 pp. Paris Perris, E. 1849 or 1850. Lettre de M. Edouard Perris a M.*** sur une excursion dans les grandes landes. Mem. Acad. Sci. Lyon (Sect. Sci.) 2 : 433-506 * In proposal (4) Bull. zool. Nomencl. 30 : 119, the applicants requested that HYDROPHORINAE Lioy, 1864 or Schiner, 1864 be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Further investigation has revealed that Lioy’s paper was published a few months earlier than Schiner’s. In Verh. k-k. zool. bot. Gesell. Wien 14 1864 : 61 a meeting of 5th October 1864 is reported with a note saying that Schiner’s Catalogue is now available. On p. 44 (tom. cit.) at a meeting of Ist June 1864, notice was given that the Catalogue had been printed and that members would be informed when it had been published. Therefore the Catalogue must have been published between Ist June and Sth October 1864, and unless proved to the contrary the date of publication will be considered to be October 1864. On the other hand Lioy cannot be dated later than 31st July 1864 (Arti Soc. ital. Sci. nat 6 1864 : 391), where Atti dell’ J.R. Instituto Veneto ecc. Serie If Tomo IX Dispensa 4, 5, 6 and 7 are listed among those books received by the Society between June and che pg Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177 STEYSKAL, G. C., RoBINson, H., ULricu, H., & Hurtey, R. L. 1973. 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 con- serve consistent usage. Z.N.(S.) 2036. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 30 : 118-120 WAHLBERG, P. F. 1844. Nya Diptera fran Norbotten och Lulea Lappmark. Ofvers. Vetensk-Akad. Férhandl. (Stockholm) 1 : 106-110 WALKER, F. 1848-1849. List of the Dipterous insects in the British Museum. Parts I-IV, with index to the four parts. pp. [V + 1172, London — 1858. Insecta Saundersiana. Vol. 1. Diptera. 474 pp. and 8 pls., London ZETTERSTEDT, J. W. 1840. Insecta Lapponica. VI +- 1140 cols., Lipsiae — 1843. Diptera Scandinaviae. Vol. 2, pp. 441-894 —— 1849. Idem., vol. 8, pp. 2935-3366 1852. Idem., vol. 11, pp. I-XIL + 4091-4545 1855. Idem., vol. 12, pp. I-XX + 4547-4942 1859. IJdem., vol. 13, pp. -XVI + 4943-6190 ae COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME PLATYCHOEROPIDAE. Z.N.(S.) 2052 (See volume 30, pages 207-209) By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) I would like to point to an error in Dr. Gingerich’s application, an error I must say rather often made. On p. 208 the applicant requested the Commission to suppress the family name PLATYCHOEROPIDAE [par. 7(1)], but to place the generic name Platy- choerops on the Official List of Generic Names [par. 7(4)(b)]. It is impossible for the Commission to suppress a family name when it does not suppress at the same time the name of the genus on which that family is based. As long as Platychoerops is an available name it must remain possible to base a family name on it. What name should an author, who considers Platychoerops as the only genus in a mono- typic family, use for that family if PLATYCHOEROPIDAE is suppressed ? In the present case the applicant should request to place both PLATYCHOEROPIDAE and PLESIADAPIDAE on the Official List with the annotation that zoologists considering that these two names are synonymous should use PLESIADAPIDAE in preference to PLATYCHOEROPIDAE. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME PLATYSTOMATIDAE SCHINER, 1862. Z.N.(S.) 2053 (See volume 31, pages 59-61) By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) At the risk of becoming monotonous, I have to point out that a family-group name cannot be suppressed by the Commission as long as the name of its type-genus is still an available name, not a junior homonym. The Commission therefore cannot suppress the family name ACHIIDAE (as requested by Steyskal and McAlpine in paragraph 4(1) of their application) unless it also suppres- sed the available name Achias Fabricius, 1805. The proper action to be taken is to place both ACHIIDAE and PLATYSTOMATIDAE on the Official List with the indication that authors who consider the genera Achias Fabricius, 1805 and Platystoma Meigen, 1803, to belong to one family, should give the family group name PLATYSTOMATIDAE (emendation of PLATYSTOMINAE) Schiner, 1862, preference over ACHIIDAE (emendation of ACHIASIDAE) Fleming, 1821. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENT ON “Gen.n., sp.n.”” AFTER 1930, AVAILABILITY OF THE GENERIC NAME. Z.N.(S.) 2054 (See volume 30, pages 210-216) By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) The gen.n., sp.n., problem has been very clearly dealt with by Sabrosky (1974, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 30 (3/4): 210-216). Still I feel that I have to strongly disagree with his views. Ideally the publication of a new taxon should give a diagnosis and its description. The definition of diagnosis and description being the following: a diagnosis indicates the characters in which the taxon differs from the other taxa of equal rank that belong with the new taxon to the same next higher taxon (i.e. in case of a genus, the differences from all other genera of the same family or subfamily); a description indicates those characters that all the subordinate taxa forming the new taxon have in common (i.e. in case of a genus, the characters which all the species placed in the genus share with each other). In the case of a new genus based on a single new species, a diagnosis of the genus can be given, but not of the species, as there are no other species in the genus with which to compare it, and the description of the genus is identical to the description of the species. The only thing that an author in good faith can do in these circum- stances is to give one description, and indicate in which characters his new genus differs from other genera in the same family or subfamily. As long as only a single species is known in the genus he cannot indicate which characters are generic and which specific. Of course, through comparison with related genera he can guess which characters might be of generic value and which of specific, but this rests entirely on a surmise, although through long experience in the group, he might come close to the truth. Therefore it would be wholly unjust and even unscientific that an author describing a new genus with a single (new) species be forced to indicate the characters of the new genus taxon and those of the new species taxon separately. If he describes his new genus and indicates the characters which distinguish this genus from all other genera in the family, he has at the same time given the characters which distinguish the single (new) species in his genus from all other species in the family, and thus in my opinion he fulfils the requirements of Article 13 completely: as both the generic and specific names are then “accompanied by a statement that purports to give characters differentiating the taxon”. That this “‘statement’’ is the same for both the genus and the species does not make the least difference. A recent example may be used to illustrate the problem. In 1973 Chace & Manning (Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 131 : 6-14) described Procaris ascensionis new species, being the sole species of Procaris new genus, being the sole genus of PROCARI- DIDAE new family, being the sole family in the PROCARIDOIDEA new superfamily. Chace & Manning duly diagnosed their new superfamily, family, genus and species, so that in Sabrosky’s view they were correct. I wonder, however, whether it is strictly possible to give in a case like this any definition of the taxa between superfamily and species that is based on more than a guess, taxonomic feeling, or intuition. One can definitely produce a diagnosis (in the above sense) of the superfamily, disting- uishing it from all other superfamilies of the infraorder Caridea, but neither for the family, nor for the genus, or species a diagnosis can be given and the description for all 4 taxa is identical. Therefore I would strongly urge not to change the Rules here and not to outlaw a single description for new genus new species, provided that only a single species is described in the new genus when the latter is first published. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179 DIRECTION 106 CORRECTION OF THE ENTRY IN OPINION 972, REFERRING TO THE AUTHOR OF THE SPECIFIC NAME SAPORTAE WHICH WAS PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY, WITH THE NAME NUMBER 969 RULING.—The entry relating to Name Number 969 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, is hereby corrected to read saportae, Papilio, Geyer in Hiibner & Geyer [1828-1832] (nec Hiibner). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1875) The name Papilio saportae Hibner, [1828-1832] was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 969, in Opinion 972, which was published on 31 December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 147. Lieut. Col. C. F. Cowan drew the Commission’s attention to the fact that Geyer was the author of this specific name and not Hiibner. In a letter dated 23 February 1973 he wrote that “Hemming, 1937, 1 : 189, among other places in Hiibner, a bibliographical and systematic account 2 vols: 1, ftsp., xxxiv, 605 pp., 2, ix-xi, 274 pp., London) has shown that plates 182 onwards of Hiibner’s Sammi. europ. Schmett. were published by Geyer, not Hubner, the latter having died in September 1826. He also showed (1 : 235) that of the eight Papiliones plates published between April 1828 and 19 July, 1832, Plate 188, on which P. saportae was figured and validly named, was the first to appear. “Hemming further showed (2 : 138) that Geyer recorded in manuscript that the locality of P. saportae was Provence. “Boisduval (Nov. 1828 : 13) named Polyommatus melanops from specimens taken near Aix by the Comte Adolphe de Saporta. De Saporta lived at Aix en Provence (Bouches-du-Rh6ne) near his father-in-law Baron Boyer de Fons- colombe, and both were keen collectors. It is thus highly probable that the holotypes of Papilio saportae Geyer (which under Article 31 of 1961, cancelled by the 1964 Code, would automatically have been corrected to ‘‘saportai’’) and of Polyommatus melanops Boisduyal came from the same series and were distributed by the Count. This explains both the subjective synonymy and the near-simultaneous publication. “The suppression of the name Papilio saportae was necessary but it should be attributed to Geyer, not Hiibner. I much regret that this fact was not noted sooner”’. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 22 November 1973, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the One-Month Rule on Voting Paper (O.M.) (73)3, either for or against correcting the author of the Official Index entry for the specific name saportae, Name Number 969 from Hiibner to Geyer. At the close of the Voting Period on 22 December 1973, the state of the voting was as follows: Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Affirmative votes—nineteen (19): Dupuis, Erben, Vokes, Melville, Mayr, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Lemche, Heppell, Sabrosky, Binder, Habe, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Bernardi, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Willink, Nye. Negative votes—one (1): Holthuis. Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Binder, Ride, Simpson, Starobogatov. Prof. Brinck, Dr. Kraus and Dr. Corliss returned late affirmative votes. In returning their voting papers, the following comments were made by Commissioners: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (29.xi.73): “This is to explain my negative vote on this question. The fact that Geyer published Hiibner’s work after the death of the latter does not make him automatically the author of the new species described and figured in the posthumous part of Hiibner’s work. “That pl. 188 which shows Papilio saportae was made by Hibner and not by Geyer is also shown by the fact that the plates up to pl. 181 had been pub- lished by Hiibner when he died in September 1826. In 1827 Geyer (see Hemming, 1937, Hiibner, vol. 2, p. 29) stated that after Hiibner’s death he had come to the possession of Hiibner’s ‘gesammten Kupferplattenvorraths . . . welch zum Besten dieser Wissenschaft anzuwenden, ich gewiss nicht unterlassen werde’. It seems likely therefore that Hiibner had already finished pl. 188 before his death, so that he is responsible for it and should be cited as the author of the new species shown on it”. Dr. E. Mayr (26.xi.73): “I vote for the proposals provided that it is clear that Geyer ‘was alone responsible both for the name and the conditions that make it available’ (Art. 50) and did not merely publish Htibner’s manuscript”’. Lt. Col. C. F. Cowan was asked if he could provide more information on the authorship of the name and replied in the following way: Lt. Col. C. F. Cowan (21.iii.74): “Article 50 says ‘The author of a name is the person who first publishes it [Geyer], unless it is clear from the contents of the publication that some other person is alone responsible both for the name and for the conditions that make it available’. ““Geyer published the name, 18 months or more, and in the second batch of plates after Hiibner died. Nothing in the publication says that Hiibner alone was responsible either for the name or for the publication, let alone both. “After Hiibner’s death Geyer published six plates in this Sammi. europ. Schmett. in 1827—April 1827 (see Hemming, 1937, Hiibner vol. 1, p. 189, para. 144), plus at least five plates in his Geschichte europ. Schmett. (id. p. 100, para. 43), and thirteen plates in the Sammi. exot. Schmett. during 1827 (id. p. 348, para. 58). These are the plates issued under the sale notice cited in your letter. Despite the Code I would sympathise with Hiibner and with anyone wishing to credit him with any of these 24 plates, but surely not more. And “‘Hiibner, 1832’’ does look so odd! “All subsequent issues, including the Papilio saportae plate, appeared under the—Hiibner, continued by Geyer heading, and cannot be dated before 1832 (id. vol. 2, pp. 31, 32)”. Dr. Holthuis (in reply to this information, 19.iv.74): “I had the impression that Hiibner was the author of ‘Sammlung europaischer Schmetterlinge’ and that only external evidence showed that Geyer had published a number of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181 plates after Hiibner’s death, while as Dr. Mayr pointed out there is the possibility that the plates were finished by Hiibner before his death, and just published by Geyer, who was the publisher of Hiibner’s works anyhow. It would be as if in a posthumous work one had to cite the publishing firm as the author. “Unfortunately I do not have a copy of Hiibner’s publication available here, but I spent a lot of time with Hemming’s book on Hiibner. There I saw (Vol. 1, p. 167, para. 67) that the wrappers of the later numbers of the publication had the title ‘Sammlung europiischer Schmetterlinge errichtet von Jacob Hiibner, fortgesetzt von Carl Geyer’. Geyer thus has been mentioned as author in the book itself. Therefore I retract my objection and agree that Papilio saportae Geyer (or actually Geyer in Hiibner & Geyer) should be placed on the Official Index”’. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (O.M.) (73)(3) were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in the 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 Direction No. 106. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 31 May 1974 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1026 CHRYSOPA HUNGARICA KLAPALEK, 1899 (INSECTA, NEUROPTERA): NEOTYPE INVALIDATED RULING.—(1) The neotype designation for Chrysopa hungarica Klapalek, 1899, made by Tjeder in 1963, is hereby invalidated. (2) The specific name Aungarica Klapalek, 1899, as published in the binomen Chrysopa hungarica, and defined by the lectotype designated by Zeleny, 1971 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 109), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 2535. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1953) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Bo Tjeder and Dr. J. Zeleny in December 1970. The application was sent to the printer on 18 March 1971 and was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 109, on 8th December 1971. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was not required in this case. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)1 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28: 109. At the close of the voting period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Holthuis, Vokes, Mayr, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Dupuis, Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, Bernardi, Ride, Kraus, Bayer, Nye, Rohdendorf. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Prof. E. Mayr (4.iv.1974): “Another case where a neotype was unnecessarily created in violation of the rules. The Commission should not in the future accept such cases”’. Dr. C. Dupuis (7.vii.1974): “Si Pon n’avait pas la manie de désigner des néotypes, il n’y aurait pas matiere 4 de telles actions”. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: hungarica, Chrysopa, Klapalek, 1899, Termeszetrajzi Fiizetek 22 : 440 The original reference for the lectotype designation for hungarica Klapalek, 1899 is Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 109 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74) 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. 1026. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 July 1974 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1027 SMINTHURINUS BORNER, 1901 (INSECTA, COLLEMBOLA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Sminthurinus Borner, 1901, made prior to this Ruling, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species, Smynthurus niger Lubbock, 1868, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Sminthurinus Borner, 1901, (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Smynthurus niger Lubbock, 1868, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 2004. (3) The specific name niger Lubbock, 1868, as published in the binomen Smynthurus niger (type-species of Sminthurinus Bérner, 1901) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 2536. (4) The generic name Smynthurella Houlbert, 1924, is hereby piaced on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2050. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1954) The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission by Dr. Willem N. Ellis in December 1970. The application was sent to the printer on 18 March 1971 and was printed on 8 December 1971, in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 110-111. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven specialist publications. The application was supported by Professor Bellinger; Professor Yosii; Professor Christiansen; H. J. Gough and M. C. Walters. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)2 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28: 111. At the end of the prescribed voting period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: Holthuis, Vokes, Mayr, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, Bernardi, Bayer, Ride, Kraus, Nye, Rohdendorf. Negative votes—one (1): Dupuis. Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. In returning his voting paper, Dr. Dupuis made the following comment (7.v.1974): “Je vote pour, 4 condition que l’on supprime seulement la désigna- Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185 tion du Zool. Anz. et que l’on se référe en (2) a la désignation de 1906. Je refuse de supprimer cette désignation de 1906 pour en formuler une autre identique. L’exercice des pleins pouvoirs doit étre aussi réduit que possible’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in this Opinion: niger, Smynthurus, Lubbock, 1868, Trans. Linn. Soc. 26 : 297 Smynthurella Houlbert, 1924, Thysanoures, Dermaptéres et Orthoptéres de France et de la faune européenne. Vol. 1, G. Doin, Paris Sminthurinus Borner, 1901, Zool. Anz. 24(645): 343 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)2 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1027. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 July 1974 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1028 FALCO EXILIS TEMMINCK, 1830 (AVES) SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name exilis Tem- minck, 1830, as published in the binomen Falco exilis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name rufiventris Smith, 1830, as published in the binomen Accipiter rufiventris, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2537. (3) The specific name exilis Temminck, 1830, as published in the binomen Falco exilis and suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 998. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1956) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by P. A. Clancey, the Chairman of S.A.O.S. List Committee, and four members of that Committee in January 1971. The application was sent to the printer on 18 March 1971 and was published on 8th December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 114-116. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin and also to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to ten ornithological serials. The application was supported by Dr. Dean Amadon. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)3 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28: 116. At the close of the voting period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: Vokes, Mayr, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatovy, Alvarado, Binder, Bayer, Ride, Kraus, Nye, Rohdendorf. Negative votes—three (3): Holthuis, Dupuis, Bernardi. Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (2.iv.1974): “It is perfectly clear from Smith’s (1830) account that he had not the slightest intention of describing a new species, but only used the name Falco rufiventris Daudin in a new combination. I am informed that the specific name of the species is changed nowadays by many authors, as this South African sparrowhawk is considered by them a subspecies of Accipiter nisus (L.)”. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 Dr. C. Dupuis (7.v.1974): “Il me parait impossible de transformer une erreur @identification en description d’espéce nouvelle!” Dr. G. Bernardi (15.vi.1974): “Décider que rufiventris Smith, 1830 est ‘available even though Smith had no intention of publishing a new name’ reléve de la science-fiction (machine 4 remonter le temps). La Commission n’a pas a étre complice de l’action contraire a /’éthique de Smith qui, aprés une erreur de détermination s’attribue en 1844 une priorité injustifiée sur Temminck, qu’il aurait di rectifier lui-méme”’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: exilis, Falco, Temminck, 1830, Planch. Color., livr. 84, pl. 496 rufiventris, Accipiter, Smith, 1830, S. Afr. quart. J. (1) 1830 (April-June) CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)3 were cast as set out above, and 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. 1028. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 July 1974 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1029 RANA BOANS LINNAEUS, 1758 (AMPHIBIA): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY RULING.—(1) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) boans Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Rana boans and interpreted by reference to the neotype designated by Duellman (1971 Herpetologica 27 : 399), Number 16603, in the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden (Name No. 2538); (b) albopunctata Spix, 1824, as published in the binomen Hyla albopunctata, as defined by the neotype (University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Number 100000) designated by Duellman, 1971, Herpetolo- gica 27 : 402; for use as the replacement name for Hy/a boans Latreille, 1801, by those zoologists who regard that species as congeneric with Rana boans Linnaeus, 1758. (Name No. 2539). (2) The name maxima Laurenti, 1768, as published in the binomen Rana maxima (a junior objective synonym of Rana boans Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 999. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1957) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by William E. Duellman and Juan A. Rivero in January 1971. The application was sent to the printer on 8 July 1971 and was published on 8 December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 117-118. The proposal was supported by Hobart M. Smith (Bull. 29 : 195). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)4 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28: 118. At the close of the voting period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: Holthuis, Vokes, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Dupuis, Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Bernardi, Bayer, Ride, Kraus, Nye, Rohdendorf. Negative votes—one (1): Binder. Abstention—one (1): Mayr. Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (2.iv.1974): “Paragraph 7(2)(a). Hyla boans Latreille, 1801, is not a primary homonym, but a secondary homonym of Rana boans Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189 Linnaeus, 1758, and therefore, not being suppressed under the Plenary Powers, cannot be placed on the Official Index”’. Dr. E. Eisenmann (27.iv.1974): ‘The statute of limitations seems not to have applied as Rana boans Linnaeus had been revived prior to its adoption”’. Prof. G. Bernardi (15.vi.1974): “La note de Duellman et Rivero constitue une excellente mise au point nomenclatorique mais je ne suis pas sir qu'il est indispensable de faire sanctionner les conclusions de ces auteurs par la Commission’. Dr. I. W. B. Nye (25.vi. abe prasposel (2)(a) should be amended from i . primary homonym....’ to *..... secondary homonym . : 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: albopunctata, Hyla, Spix, 1824, Animalia nova, sive species novae Testudinum et Ranarum quas in itinere per Brasiliam, annis 1817-1820 collegit et des- cripsit ... J. B. Spix., Monachii: 33 boans, Rana, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae (ed. 10) 1: 213 maxima, Rana, Laurenti, J. N., 1768, Specimen medicum, exhibens synopsin Reptilium emendatum cum experimentis circa venena et antidota reptilium Austriacorum, Vienna: 32 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)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. 1029. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 August 1974 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1030 CYLINDRELLA SWAINSON, 1840 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following generic names are hereby suppressed for the ler hte of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy: (a) Cylindrella Swainson, 1840, type-species by monotypy Conus costatus Chemnitz, 1795; (b) Cylindrella Swainson, 1840, type-species by monotypy Cylindrella alba Swainson, 1840. (2) The generic name Cylichna Loven, 1846 (gender: feminine), type-species, by subsequent designation by Pilsbry, 1893, Bulla cylindracea Pennant, 1777, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 2005. (3) The specific name cylindracea Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Bulla cylindracea, (type-species of Cylichna Lovén, 1846) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 2540. (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) Cylindrella Swainson, 1840 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 2051); (b) Cylindrella Swainson, 1840: 311 (Name No. 2052); (c) Cylindrella Swainson, 1840: 326 (Name No. 2053). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1960) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. H. Lemche in March 1971. The application was sent to the printer on 8 July 1971 and was published on 8 December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 124-125. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given in the same part of the Bulletin and to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to three specialist serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)5 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28: 125. At the close of the pre- scribed voting period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: Holthuis, Vokes, Mayr, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Dupuis, Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatoy, Alvarado, Binder, Bernardi, Ride, Kraus, Bayer, Nye, Rohdendorf. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in this present Opinion: Cylichna Lovén, 1846, Ofvers. K. Vet. Ac. Férh. 111(5): 142 cylindracea, Bulla, Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool., ed. 4, 1V: 100 Cylindrella Swainson, 1840, A Treatise on Malacology, in Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclopaedia, London: 135 Cylindrella Swainson, 1840 (tom. cit.): 311 Cylindrella Swainson, 1840 (tom. cit.): 326 CERTIFICATE i certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)5 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that Voting Paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1030. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 July 1974 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1031 EOSTOMIAS EXIMIUS JORDAN & GILBERT, 1925 (PISCES): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY RULING.—(1) The specific name eximius Jordan & Gilbert, 1925, as published in the binomen Eostomias eximius, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 2541. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N((S.) 1964) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. R. Lavenberg in February 1971. The application was sent to the printer on 8 July 1971 and was published on 31st December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 164-165. The application was supported by Dr. Jules M. Crane, Jr.; the Nomenclature Committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (Bull. 29 : 111) and George A. Moore. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)6 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28: 165. At the end of the voting period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: Holthuis, Vokes, Mayr, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Dupuis, Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, Bernardi, Bayer, Ride, Kraus, Nye, Rohdendorf. Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky. Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. Dr. E. Eisenmann did not vote on this occasion. The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: Prof. E. Mayr (2.iv.1974): “The original designation of the neotype was in violation of the Code since no evidence was presented that there was a need for a neotype designation ‘for solving a complex zoological problem’. The applicant wasted two pages of Bulletin”’. Prof. G. G. Simpson (6.iv.1974): “In spite of Article 75(f), there was really no reason to submit this wastefully to the Commission. The neotype designa- tion was not valid under Article 75”’. Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (27.iv.1974): “I have no objection to placing the name on the Official List, but I vote against it because that action would not accom- plish what the author wishes to do. Crane’s neotype desgination, if valid, could only be nullified by use of the plenary powers (Art. 61), not by mere placing on the Official List of the name eximius as defined by the holotype. However, it appears to me that Crane’s designation was not in accordance Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 193 with Article 75(a), and that the neotype can therefore be disregarded without action by the Commission”’. Dr. C. Dupuis (7.v.1974): “Si Pon n’avait pas la manie de désigner des néotypes, il n’y aurait pas matiére a de telles actions”’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: eximius, Eostomias, Jordan & Gilbert, 1925, Stanf. Univ. Publs (Biol. Sci) 4 (1): 13 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)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. 1031. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 August 1974 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1032 HENIOLA UVAROV, 1940 (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Heniola Uvarov, 1940, made prior to this Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Heniola gigliotosi Carbonell, 1971 (as defined by the designated holotype from “Valle del Zamora’’, Ecuador) is hereby designated to be type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Heniola Uvarov, 1940 (gender: feminine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Heniola gigliotosi Carbonell, 1971, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2006. (3) The specific name gigliotosi Carbonell, 1971, as published in the binomen Heniola gigliotosi (type-species of Heniola Uvarov, 1940) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2542. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1966) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. C. Carbonell in April 1971. The application was sent to the printer on 8 July 1971 and was published on 31 December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 166-167. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications. (Constitution Article 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven specialist serials. The proposal was supported by Dr. A. Gurney. Dr. Lemche asked for an amendment to be made to the proposal in his com- ment (Bull. 29 : 112). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)7 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 167, and the amendment by Dr. Lemche that “paragraph (1), line four shall read ‘n.sp. as defined by the designated holotype from ‘Valle del Zamora”, Ecuador” ’. (Bull. 29 : 112) At the close of the prescribed voting period on 28 June 1974 the state of voting was as follows: Affirmative yvotes—iwenty-one (21), received in the following order: Holthuis, Vokes, Mayr, Simpson*, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Dupuis*, Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, Bernardi, Bayer, Ride, Kraus, Nye, Rohdendorf. Negative votes—none (0). Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. Professor Mayr did not indicate which way he intended to vote. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195 *Professor Simpson and Dr. Dupuis were in favour of the proposal but not in favour of the amendment. In returning their voting papers the following comments were made by Commissioners: Prof. G. G. Simpson (6.iv.1974): “I do not accept the amendment which is irrelevant because the Commission is voting only on Paragraph 9 of the original application, where there is no reference to allotypes or paratypes. The designa- tion of such ‘types’ is not part of the proposal. J agree that the Commission should not accept such designations. However, I further disagree with the wording ‘n.sp. as defined by the designated holotype’. A holotype cannot define a species’. Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (27.iv.1974): “Paragraph (1) of the request is concerned with type-species. Would not Dr. Lemche’s amendment be more appropriate in paragraph (3): (as published in . . . 1940) and as defined by .. .’? In the Opinion, ‘n.sp.’ should be replaced by ‘Carbonell’ wherever used in the decision itself”. Dr. C. Dupuis (7.v.1974): “Carbonell est taxinomiquement libre de désigner une série de syntypes pour l’espéce gigliotosi. Je vote (1) pour la désignation de gigliotosi comme type du genre Heniola (2) contre l'amendement restrictif de Lemche”’. Prof. E. Tortonese (10.v.1974): “I agree with Lemche’s proposal’. Prof. R. Alvarado (15.vi.1974): “In voting ‘for’ I strongly adhere to Dr. Lemche’s comments”’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: gigliotosi, Heniola, Carbonell, 1971, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 167 Heniola Uvarov, 1940, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11)5: 174 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)7 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. 1032. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 6 August 1974 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REVISED PROPOSALS ON THE VALIDATION OF AGLAJA RENIER, 1807, AGLAJA DEPICTA RENIER, 1807 AND A, TRICOLORATA RENIER, 1807 (MOLLUSCA, OPISTHOBRANCHIA); NEOTYPE SELECTION FOR 4. TRICOLORATA. Z.N.(S.) 1092 By Henning Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Kobenhavn Q, Danmark) Foliowing further information received from Dr. R. Burn, and comments by Dr. Sabrosky (Bull. 30 : 132) and Professor Sylvester-Bradley (Bull. 30 : 132) received since the publication of the original application (Bull. 29 : 127-130), I have formulated a new set of proposals and here designate a neotype of Aglaja tricolorata Renier, 1807. Dr. Burn brought to my attention the fact that the earliest type-designation for Aglaja was Aglaja tricolorata, made by Suter (1913, Manual New Zealand Moll.: 542). He also informed me that in addition to Renier’s two species, there are at least two other nominal species of Ag/aja in the Mediterranean Sea. One is Aglaja suerati Vayssiére (1926, Journ. Conch. Paris 70 : 125) from Tunisia, and the other, although not yet recorded in the literature of the Mediterranean is represented by two specimens from the Bay of Naples, Italy, now in the collection of the National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne. (Reg. No. F27395). A. suerati cannot be confused with either A. depicta or A. tricolorata and has recently been transferred to Melanochlamys Cheeseman (1881, Trans. New Zealand Inst. 13 : 224) by Rudman (1972, Pacific Sci. 26 : 60). The specimens from the Bay of Naples are conspecific with A. taila Marcus & Marcus (1966, Stud. trop. Oceanogr. Miami 4 : 166) from the Gulf of Guinea, west Africa. Aglaja taila, like A. tricolorata has a tapering flagellum. The two species mentioned by me as being the only two from the Mediterranean, namely, A. tricolorata and A. depicta, are distinguished from each other by the presence (tricolorata) or absence (depicta) of a tapering flagellum on the posterior left lobe of the body shield. It seems that Vayssiére (1880, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. (6) 9: 73) and Bergh (1893, Mittheil. Zool. Stat. Neapel 11 : 111) correctly identified their Mediterranean species with the tapering flagellum, and that the species they described cannot be confused with A. taila. Aglaja taila is distinguished from A. tricolorata by the following characters: (1) a longer head shield relative to body length, (2) the presence of digitform foot corners and (3) the form of the male copulatory organ. It is therefore necessary that the concept of Aglaja tricolorata be fixed as the species without the digitiform corners and thus I am making the following designation of a neotype. Aglaja tricolorata RENIER, 1807 DESCRIPTION OF A NEOTYPE The specimen here described was kindly placed at my disposal by Professor Al Barash of the Department of Zoology at the University of Tel Aviv, Israel. It belongs to the collection of that department. Labels. One label is marked in Indian ink “NS 972 Caesarea, Israel— Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. oe cag re ty? 2 Wl avian, ? tal Pi SNe ier 3! A a ee! «|, ae Plate 1 Bull zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197 4.1965 leg. E. Gilath’’, another (smaller strip) “‘*972 Aglaja tricolorata Renier, 1804” (sic) and I have added a new one “‘Aglaja tricolorata Renier, 1807 NEOTYPE designated by H. Lemche 1974”. Description. (See plate). The very well preserved specimen is fully stretched, measuring 15 mm long, and 8 mm across from one edge of a para- podium to the opposite, and 5 mm high. The head is 6 x 4 mm, the pallial shield 7 x 5 mm, the foot 11 x 3 mm excluding the parapodia. The head as seen from above forms an oblong disc with a small median protrusion posteriorly. Its margins are sharp and reach out laterally to cover the large organs of Hancock placed on each side. The mouth is a T-shaped opening with the lateral lips separating it from the sides of the head. The seminal groove is narrow and runs from the genital opening beneath the base of the ctenidium forwards to the close proximity of the mouth, just right of the lowermost end of the mouth slit. The pallial shield is larger than the head and is marked off in front solely by its pigmentation, and so it is also to the left and along half of the right side. The sides of the body are pigment free. The pallial cavity opens beneath the posterior side and on half of the right side of the shield, the latter part being fully occupied by the ctenidium. This organ has a strongly curved axis with five distinct thick and rather low lamellae on the lower side, plus some larger and more densely set ones basally, not to be counted without damaging the specimen. A narrow space separates the ctenidium from the lowermost part of the pallial fold on the left side which forms a kind of flap, from the outside of which rises a thin crest forming another flap pointing more posteriorly. This latter ends up in a transversely placed, tapering flagellum. The right side of the pallium ends also in a kind of flap, but with no flagellum just a slight keel on the outside, and a small knob on the inside of its margin. The flagellum distinguishes the species tricolorata from depicta Renier, 1807. The foot is rectangular, with rounded anterior corners. Laterally, it con- tinues directly into the parapodia which are broadest almost in the middle of the body, then strongly decreasing so that their margins pass directly over into the posterior margin of the foot itself, about one fourth of the body length from the posterior end of the animal. On the preserved specimen the ground colour is still whitish, but it is covered by a greenish-brownish pigment (recorded as yeilow and blue on living animals) distributed as extremely small dots in varying concentrations. The dorsal side of the head and pallium, the margins and lower sides of the parapodia, and the foot sole are pigmented, but the darkest parts are the foot sole, a stripe along the upper side of the flagellum (bordered by white), and less so a pair of indistinct patches connected by a broad stripe on the posterior half of the pallium, and parts of the lateral borders of the head. All over, the pigmented parts are broken by larger, rounded spots on the foot sole, but often slightly raised. There are very few of these spots on the foot sole, but elsewhere they are Plate 1 Aglaja tricolorata Renier, 1807 neotype Caesarea (Israel) Mediterranean. Upper left: from above. Upper right: from below. Below: from the left. 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature rather abundant, though not enough to give the darker parts any similarity to a meshwork, as is usual in the species depicta. Thus, for the moment we distinguish between four Mediterranean species of Aglaja, viz. 1 Wane Smnall-slender: whites M781 S SHA, Ato) MI, ae seurati (Vayssiére) animalabroader pigmented 9)... P88) U0. ORG Sonera oe Satie 2 J anterior foot corners forming distinct flaps........ taila Marcus & Marcus anterior foot corners rounded. ......0..5. 00 ccc cece ec censesseneeene 3 3 JS flagellum present posteriorly to the left................. tricolorata Renier \iflaselhumfabsente2Uky.. aes Ae, 80, bookig omens depicta Renier To return to the proposals, I have duly studied the comments made by Dr. Sabrosky and Professor Sylvester-Bradley. I accept Sabrosky’s criticism of the author indicated of the family AGLAJIDAE. This necessitates a change in proposal (1)(c). Sabrosky’s comment on Acera has made me restudy also the position of Doridium. Both names become junior synonyms when Aglaja Renier, 1807 is validated. The type-species is A. tricolorata and not depicta Renier (= Dori- dium coriaceum and D. membranaceum both of Meckel, 1909 =Acera carnosa Cuvier, 1810) as mentioned earlier. Theoretically, depicta may some day be considered generically distinct from fricolorata, in which case Doridium—and next Acera—would have to be used. As earlier explained in detail, neither of these two names is free from problems, and their re-use or use may cause trouble. Thus I consider it better to leave my proposals in paragraph (2) unchanged. In order to conform with the change in (1)(c), proposal (5) is to be changed. I accept that the bird name Ag/aia Swainson is a separate name as suggested by Sabrosky, with type-species Tanagra tatao Linnaeus, 1766. This species is also the type of Tangara Brisson, 1760, as re-validated. Thus Ag/aia Swainson is definitely “killed” by being a junior objective synonym of Tangara, but at the same time its presence blocks the use of Aglaia Brady, 1867—the topic of the comment by Sylvester-Bradley. However, as the reasoning which leads to the invalidation of Aglaia Brady is rather intricate, I do think it wise to place that name, as well as the family-group name AGLAINAE Swainson, 1837, on the Official Indexes, which are made exactly for the purpose of making it easier for people to find out whether a certain name is definitely invalid. This reasoning makes my proposal (6)(d) unnecessary in its present form, and I propose to replace it as indicated below, to cover Aglaia Brady instead. On the other hand, I prefer to let paragraph (7) stand. Therefore, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature: (1) to use the plenary powers to validate (a) the specific names (i) depicta Renier, 1807, as published in the binomen Aglaja depicta; (ii) tricolorata Renier, 1807, as published in the binomen Aglaja tricolorata; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199 (b) the generic name Aglaja Renier, 1807, (gender feminine) type by subsequent designation by Suter, 1913, Ag/aja tricolorata Renier, 1807 as validated under (1)(a)(ii) above; (c) the family name AGLAJIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (1883) based on the generic name Aglaja Renier, 1807 (corr. pro 1804) as validated under (1)(b) above, and as emended from DoRIDIDAE Fischer, 1883 based on Doridium Meckel, 1809, a junior subjective synonym of Aglaja Renier, 1807; (2) under the plenary powers to suppress for the Law of Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy, the generic names (a) Doridium Meckel, 1809, type-species by subsequent designation Doridium membranaceum Meckel, 1809, (b) Acera Cuvier, 1810, type-species by monotypy, Acera carnosa Cuvier, 1810; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names: (a) depicta Renier, 1807, as validated under (1)(a)(i) above, (b) tricolorata Renier, 1807, as validated under (1)(a)(ii) above and defined by the neotype selected by Lemche, 1974; (4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the name Aglaja Renier, 1807, as validated under (1)(b) above; (5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, the name AGLAJIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (1883), as accepted under (1)(c) above; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, the names (a) Aglaia Renier, 1804 a nomen nudum (Mollusca) (b) Doridium Meckel, 1809, and (c) Acera Cuvier, 1810, as suppressed under (2)(a) above (d) Aglaja Eschscholtz, 1825, (Coelenterata) a junior homonym of Aglaja Renier, 1807 (e) Aglaia Brady, 1867 (Crustacea Ostracoda), a junior homonym of Aglaia Swainson, 1827 (Aves) (7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, the names: (a) AGLAINAE Swainson, 1837, an incorrectly based family group name (Aves) ; (b) DoripmDAE Fischer, 1883, an invalid original spelling of AGLAJIDAE [Fischer, 1883] as corrected under (1)(c) above (Mollusca). 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO OPINION 908: CORRECTION OF THE TYPE-SPECIES OF LILIOCERIS REITTER, 1912. Z.N.(S.) 1786 By Richard E. White (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) As an adjunct to Opinion 908 (1970, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 12) there was a reference to Aftelabus lilii Scopoli as the type-species of Lilioceris by virtue of the designation by Chij6é (1951, Tech. Bull. Kagawa Agric. Coll. 2 (2) : 80). This is in error, for the designation by Heinze (1937, Bull. Mus. r. Hist. Nat. Belg. 13 (25) : 3) of Chrysomela merdigera L. (an originally included species) takes precedence over that of Chij6. The error was made in the original appeal to the Commission by Selman and Smith (1967, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 (2): 116). The type-species designation by Heinze does not alter the accepted zoological application of Lilioceris, for, as recognized by Selman and Smith, /ilii Scopoli and merdigera L. are congeneric. I therefore propose that the entry 2(c) of Opinion 908 set out on page 12 of Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27, be altered to read: (2)(c) Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 (gender:masculine), type-species by sub- sequent designation by Heinze, 1937, Chrysomela merdigera Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1893). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 AMPHISBAENA MILDEI PETERS: HOLOTYPE REDISCOVERED. Z.NAS.) 1746 By Carl Gans (The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.) In 1878 Peters described Amphisbaena mildei on the basis of one specimen from “Porto Alegre”, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, a locality from the vicinity of which the species A. prunicolor, A. darwini and A. munoai have now been recorded (Gans, 1966b). His description mentioned counts of body (198) and caudal (24) annuli, of 4 poorly visible precloacal pores as well as head scale asymmetries and proportions, all characteristics shared by some specimens of the three sympatric species. He did not mention the number of segments to a midbody annulus nor the characteristically knobbed caudal segment pattern; however, the characteristics of occipital segmentation, size, and colour suggested, but did not prove, that Peters had a specimen of Amphisbaena darwini Dumeéril and Bibron, 1854, so that the name mildei would have been available for the distinct South Brazilian population of that species. Unfortunately the type of Amphisbaena mildei, supposedly number 6255 in the Zoologischen Museum der Universitat, Berlin, could not be located at the time the revision was proposed. Dr. H. Wermuth then informed me that it had perhaps been lost as no jar in the collection bore this name or number (Wermuth, 1967). In order to avoid future name changes I therefore addressed a petition to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Gans, 1966a, 1967, 1968a, 1968b), and asked that the name mi/dei be con- sidered a nomen oblitum and hence unavailable. An interpretation by the secretary (Melville, 1969) confirmed that A. mildei was indeed a nomen oblitum (presumably technically invalid under the old Article 23b) and could not present any threat in its quality as a nomen dubium. The name trachura Cope (1885), in the combination Amphisbaena darwini trachura (Cope 1885) was hence applicable to the south Brazilian race. Last year (1973), through the courtesy of Dr. G. Peters, it proved possible to visit the Berlin Museum, there to review all of its amphisbaenian material. One of the jars contained the missing type. The faded original label had been marked in black pencil to state ““Amphisbaena sp.?”’ and the number had been changed. However, examination under the microscope indicated that the label retained faded ink markings giving the original name, number, locality and collector of the holotype. The specimen fits the original description. Meristic characters in the standardized sequence (Gans, 1966b) are: 202 body, 3 lateral, (7 autotomy), and 19 caudal annuli; 18 dorsal and 22 ventral segments to a midbody annulus; 3 supra and 3 infralabials; 4 segments in the first and 5 in the second postgenial row; 12 post malars; no precloacal pores; length snout-vent 301 mm, tail 35 mm, diameter midbody 12.5 mm. The second supralabials are horizontally divided on both and the third supralabial on the left side only. The parietal segments are small and the shielded portion of the head short. The pig- mentation shows countershading and lateral fading and the dorsal body seg- Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ments show dark central spots. The terminal caudal segments appear convex in the typical knobbing of the caudal tip. Only the absence of pores differs from the original description. These characteristics support the concepts (1) that this is the holotype of A. mildei and (2) that the name would have pertained to the northern race of Amphisbaena darwini. The name remains a nomen oblitum, but the latter form should strictly be given the name Amphisbaena darwini mildei. In accord with Article 79(b) of the Monaco (1972) revision, I can certify that (a) the name A. mildei has not been used during the last 50 years as a valid name (Gans, 1966a, paragraph 4), and (b) the name Amphisbaena darwini trachura, during the last thirty years, has been referred to in more than ten publications (Gans, 1966b, 1967, 1974; Gans and Diefenbach, 1970; Gans and Wever, 1972; Gans et al., 1967; Huang ef al., 1967; Vanzolini, 1951, 1952; Wever and Gans, 1973). Several of these publications are in fields other than taxonomy. Since the rediscovery of this holotype is of historical interest only and its use would not serve the interests of stability, I request the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature: (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 for purposes of the Law of Priority but not the Law of Homonymy; (b) to place mildei Peters, 1878, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena mildei, as suppressed (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. I thank Dr. H. Wermuth for information and Dr. G. Peters for his assistance while in Berlin. Supported by N.S.F. GB-31088X. REFERENCES Corr, E. D. 1885. Twelfth contribution to the herpetology of tropical America. Proc. Am. phil. Soc. 22 : 167-194 DumeriL, A. H. A., & Bipron, G. 1838. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle complete des reptiles. Paris, vol. 5, 855 pp. Gans, C. 1966a. Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1746. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : (4) 162-163 — 1966b. Studies on amphisbaenids (Amphisbaenia, Reptilia). 3. The small species from southern South America commonly identified as Amphisbaena darwini. Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 134 (3) : 185-260 — 1967. A checklist of the recent amphisLaenians (Amphisbaenia, Reptilia). Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 135 (2) : 61-106 — 1968a. Amendment to application for the suppression of Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24: 8 — 1968b. Comment on the proposal to suppress Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878. Z.N.(S.) 1746. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 4 —— 1974. Biomechanics. J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia-Toronto. x + 261 pp. —— & DierenBAcH, C. O. 1970. Amphisbaena. In Catalog of the neotropical Squamata. Part Il. Lizards—Amphisbaenia. Jn: James A. Peters and Roberto Donoso-Barros, [eds.]. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. No. 297: 26-38 —— & Wever, E. G. 1972. The ear and hearing in Amphisbaenia (Reptilia). J. exp. Zool. 179 (1) : 17-34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203 ——, Huana, C., & CLarK, H. F. 1967. The diphyletism of the Amphisbaenia (Reptilia). A reevaluation based upon chromosome counts. Copeia, no. 2, pp. 485-487 Huana, C., Crark, H. F., & Gans, C. 1967. Karyological studies on fifteen forms of amphisbaenians (Amphisbaenia: Reptilia). Chromosoma 22 (1) : 1-15 MELVILLE, R. V. 1969. Comment on the proposed suppression of Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878. _Z.N.(S.) 1746. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 211 Peters, W.C.H. 1878. Uber vier neue amerikanische Amphisbaena-Arten. Mber. K. preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berl.: 778-781 VANZOLINI, P.E. 1951. Evolution, adaptation and distribution of the amphisbaenid lizards (Sauria: Amphisbaenidae). Thesis, Harvard Univ., pp. 1-148 —— 1953. On the type locality of some Brazilian reptiles and amphibians collected by H. H. Smith and described by E. D. Cope. Copeia, 124-125 WerRMuTH, H. 1967. Comments on the proposed suppression of Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878. Z.N.(S.) 1746. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 8 Wever, E. G., & GANs, C. 1973. The ear in Amphisbaenia (Reptilia); further anatomical observations. J. Zool., Lond. 171 : 189-206 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS AMPHISBAENA MILDEI PETERS, 1878 (REPTILIA, AMPHISBAENTA) Nomenclature Committee, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, per C. J. McCoy, Chairman (Amphibians and Reptiles) Gans (i974, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 31: 202) has requested that the Commission suppresses the name Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878, and places mildei Peters, 1878 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. An earlier proposal by Gans (1966, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 23 : 162-163) for suppression of mildei resulted in a ruling by the Secretary that mifdei Peters, 1878 was a nomen oblitum. Rediscovery of the holotype of mi/dei and confirmation of its identity with the south Brazilian race of Amphisbaena darwini has prompted Gans’ latest petition, in order to preserve the name trachura Cope, 1885 for this form. An ad hoc committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists has been formed to comment on this case: Mr. Federico Achaval, Departamento de Zoologia Vertebrados, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Montevideo, Dr. P. E. Vanzolini, Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, and Dr. C. J. McCoy, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Chairman. The case for suppression of this nomen oblitum is fairly presented, and we agree with Gans that adoption of mi/dei for the northern race of Amphisbaena darwini would not serve the interests of stability. Not only has the name Amplisbaena darwini trachura been in frequent use in the past thirty years, it has appeared in such influential works as a checklist of recent amphisbaenians (Gans, 1967, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 135 : 70), and checklist and key to Neotropical amphisbaenians (Gans and Diefenbach, 1970, U.S. Nat’/. Mus. Bull. (297) : 26-38). We wish to express our unanimous support for this proposal. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PARNALIUS RAFINESQUE 1815 (INSECTA, RHOPALOCERA): REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION. Z.N.(S.) 1884 By N. D. Riley and L. G. Higgins (c/o Entomology Dept., British Museum (Natural History), London S.W.7) The genus of European Papilionid butterflies to which Rafinesque (1815, Analyse de la Nature: 128) applied the name Parnalius had till then been known as Thais Fabricius (1807, Iiliger’s Mag. Ins. 6 : 283). Thais Fabricius 1807, however, is an invalid junior homonym of Thais Bolten 1798, a genus of Mollusca. What Rafinesque’s reasons were for introducing Parnalius is not clear from the context; what is clear is that he effectively created a replacement name for Thais Fabricius, type-species Papilio hypsipyle Fabricius, 1776, by monotypy. A year later Ochsenheimer published the new generic name Zerynthia (1816, Schmett. Europa 4: 29) specifically to replace the invalid monotypic Thais of Fabricius. Stichel (1907, in Wytsman’s Genera Insectorum fasc. 59) in his account of the subfamily ZERYNTHIINAE included a bibliography of systematic works mention- ing the genus under consideration. Under Thais 32 references are given, under Zerynthia 8, under Parnalius 0, — the name is not mentioned. A search of the literature from 1815 to date has failed to produce any reference to Parnalius other than in Sherborn’s Index Animalium, which is an alphabetical list of names in zoology. Since about 1904, when Kirby reintroduced Zerynthia, followed in 1907 by Stichel, this name has gradually superseded the invalid Thais of Fabricius; and the family-group name ZERYNTHIINAE (Kirby 1904-06) has gained acceptance. This is a typical example of the kind of case for the control of which Article 23(b) (now 23(a-b)) of the Code was introduced: the threatened resurrection of a senior synonym, Parnalius, that has never been used for a very long period of time, in this instance 154 years, to replace a synonym, Zerynthia, one year its junior, which has been in use, admittedly somewhat sporadically prior to 1904 but since then with increasing acceptance, and is the basis of the family-group name ZERYNTHIINAE. Accordingly we invite the Commission :— (1) to suppress the name Parnalius as in (1) above for the purposes of the Law of Priority, by the exercise of their Plenary Powers; (2) to place the said name in accordance with the action taken under (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected Names in Zoology; (3) to place the generic name Zerynthia Ochsenheimer 1816, Schmetterlinge von Europa 4: 29, gender feminine, type species Papilio hypsipyle Fabricius, 1776, Gen. Ins. Mantissa: 265 (a junior subjective synonym of Papilio polyxena Denis & Schiffermueller (1775) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 (4) to place the specific name polyxena Denis & Schiffermueller, 1775, as published in the binomen Papilio polyxena on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. A postscript. Since this application was submitted, in March 1969, two usages of Parnalius have come to our attention, one in Kloet & Hincks, Check List of British Insects. Ed. 2, Part 2, Lepidoptera, 1972, the other in South, R., Butterflies of the British Isles, Ed. Howarth, T. G. 1973. Also, as a result of the Commission’s clarification of Articles 23b and 79(b) (1972, B.Z.N. 29 : 185) it has become necessary to submit the following list of usages of Zerynthia in the last 50 years in preference to any other name for the genus concerned: Bryk F. 1923. Lepid. Cat. pars 27 : Baroniidae, Teinopalpidae and Parnassidae. Junk, Berlin: page 7. , WEGENER F. 1926 Neck glands in Zerynthia. Z. Morph. Okol. Tiere 5 : 155-206. Romel, E. 1927. Zerynthia rumina in Spain. Entomologist’s Rec. J. Var. 39 : 136. VON ROosEN, K. 1929-31. ia Seitz, A. Macrolep. World vol. 1. Supplement (as synonym of Thais). Alfred Kernen, Stuttgart, 1932 : 17. Verity, R. 1947. Le Farfalle diurne d'Italia. Casa editrice Marzocco, S. A. Firenze: 49. Hartic, F. and AMseL, H.G. 1951. Lepidoptera Sardinica. Fragm. ent.1 : 1-152 Forster, W. and WOHLFAHRT, T. A. 1955. Die Schmetterlinge Mitteleuropas. Franckh’sche Verlagshandlung, Stuttgart: 3. Nicuvescu, E. V. 1961. Fauna Repub. Pop. Romania. Insecta XI pt. 5, Lepidop- tera, Fam. Papilionidae: 1-103 (68). Hrusy, K. 1964. Prodromus Lepidopter Slovenska. Bratislava: 867. Hemminc, A. F. 1967. The generic names of the Butterflies. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Entomology. Suppl. 9 : 464. Hicains, L. G. and Ritey, N. D. 1970. A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Britain & Europe. Collins, London: 37-38. MANL_LEY, W. B. L. and ALttcarD, H. G. 1970. A Field Guide to the Butterflies & Burnets of Spain. EE. W. Classey Ltd., Hampton, Middlesex: 22, 137. The above are nearly all works of major faunistic or taxonomic importance. The list is by no means exhaustive. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ARTICLE 50 AND QUESTIONS OF AUTHORSHIP. Z.N.(S.) 1925 By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Entomology Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., USDA) The case of “Heterotis Ehrenberg, 1829” [Z.N.(S.) 1807], published in the Bulletin for 7 December 1967 (d’Aubenton and Daget, pp. 291-293) raises questions of the authorship to be attributed to the names involved. There has been considerable difference of opinion about recent problems, and it seems desirable for the Commission to focus attention on the interpretation of Article 50 as it affects the case of Heterotis and similar situations. 2. Because single authors only are involved in the examples used, the statement in Article 50 can be simplified for present purposes by eliminating the plurals and the reference to joint publication: ‘The author of a scientific name is the person who first publishes it in a way that satisfies the criteria of availability, unless it is clear from the contents of the publication that . . . some other person is alone responsible both for the name and the conditions that make it available.” 3. The author who first publishes a name would appear to have a major claim on the name, because publication in the meaning of the Code is a primary criterion of availability (Article 1la). However, the last clause of Article 50 clearly refers to conditions other than publication, because the author of the publication would obviously be responsible for the publishing of the name. Article 51c is further testimony that under certain conditions the “‘author” of a name, for purposes of nomenclature, is not the person publishing it; thus, “B in A” can only mean that ““B”’ is the “‘author’’ of a name that was published in a paper by “‘A”’. 4. The other conditions would ordinarily be a description or diagnosis (perhaps rarely a figure or an indication), because the conditions of date, language, etc. (Article 1la-g) are general criteria that names must satisfy irre- spective of questions of authorship. There is no difficulty when a publishing author quotes the description furnished him by another author, as well as attributing the name to that author. The differences of opinion arise when author “A” publishes author “B’s” manuscript name and attributes it to him but characterizes it in his own (‘‘A’s’’) words, or so treats it that one cannot say with certainty which author is actually responsible for the other “‘conditions that make it available” (i.e., the description or diagnosis). 5. I believe that there will be so many variations and degrees of details that for simplicity and objectivity we should recognize as “the author” of a name that author who publishes the name and the qualifying conditions (Articles 12 and 13), except only in cases of direct quotation or equally clearcut attribution of both name and description (and of course the specific exception provided for names in minutes, cf. Article 50a). This is clearly the meaning of Articles 1Mail address: c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207 50 and 51c; examples for these Articles in the Code would have been useful for clarity and better understanding. 6. A few examples from different groups of animals will illustrate the case. Details differ, but the essential problem is surprisingly uniform. 7. Example 1. Heterotis and H. niloticus The relevant parts of this case (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 291-293) may be recapitulated briefly: ‘*Heterotis niloticus Ehrenberg”: Manuscript name, the plate labelled “1827” but not actually published until years later, in 1899. “Sudis niloticus, Ehr.”: Published, with brief mention of characters, by Cuvier, 1829, Régne animal (ed. 2), 2 : 328. “Heterotis niloticus des Herrn Dr. Ehrenberg’: Mention in a footnote by Riippell, 1829, Beschreibung und Abbildung mehrerer neuer Fische im Nil entdeckt, p. 10. The applicants in the present case, MM. d’ Aubenton and Daget, consider the association of an available specific name (Cuvier had appeared earlier in 1829) with a new generic name to be an indication making available “the generic name Heferotis Ehrenberg in Riippell, 1829.” Everyone agrees that both names, Heterotis and niloticus, were manuscript names first coined by Ehrenberg. But this by itself does not confer nomen- clatural availability and authorship. They are no different from many un- published names on labels attached to specimens in collections, names in notebooks and similar manuscript records, and even published names if these are nomina nuda in mere lists of species. Everyone agrees also that the name niloticus was first published by Cuvier (1829) and the name Hererotis by Riippell (1829). The real question is whether other conditions for availability were the responsibility of Ehrenberg or of Cuvier and Riippell. For niloticus, the description, such as it is, appears in the words of Cuvier as far as one can tell. For Heferotis the situation is not clear because there is no description of the genus, and it rests upon the associa- tion of an already available specific name (niloticus) with a hitherto unpublished generic name (an “indication” in the sense of Article 16a, v). Ehrenberg “1827” cannot be credited with that indication; neither name was then published and available. Availability of niloticus came with Cuvier (1829), and Riippell (1829) was the first to associate in publication the name Heferotis with that available name. Conclusions: Nomenclaturally speaking, the author of Heterotis is Riippell, and of niloticus, Cuvier. If one wished to show the source of the manuscript names adopted by those authors, one could write Heferotis Rippell (ex Ehrenberg) and niloticus Cuvier (ex Ehrenberg), but these bibliographical formalities are seldom used. 8. Example 2. Ceriodes durani (Diptera: Syrphidae) In 1925, Shannon published a revision of syrphid flies of the sub-family Ceriodinae (1925, Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus 13 : 48-65). In a key to the American species, on p. 62, he included “...durani Davidson.” In three lines at the bottom of the same page, under the heading “Ceriodes durani Davidson”, Shannon wrote: “Mr. W. M. Davidson. who has the description of this species in manuscript, has kindly given me permission to include the 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature species in the key. He will shortly publish the description.” Davidson published his description in another journal the following year (1926, Ent. News 37 : 40-42). Conclusion: The name was proposed by Davidson but published by Shannon; most important, the key was Shannon’s work, and this was the essential condition that gave the name availability as of 1925. Accordingly, in the recent ‘“‘Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico”’ (Stone et al., 1965 : 615), durani is credited to Shannon, 1925, and not to Davidson in Shannon. 9. Example 3. Sicyonia wheeleri (Crustacea) Burkenroad and Chace collected in Bermuda in 1936 and found a new shrimp, which Burkenroad christened Sicyonia wheeleri, with the intention of describing it later. In 1943, Gurney (Proc. Zool. Soc. London, Ser. B, 113 : 1 ff.) described the larval stages of “Sicyonia wheeleri Burkenroad,” and thanked Burkenroad for the identification. In 1945, Burkenroad (Arkiv fér Zoologi, 37A (9) : 5) finally published his own description of wheeleri (adult), as a new species. Conclusion: The name must be cited as Sicyonia wheeleri Gurney, or at most as Gurney (ex Burkenroad). Gurney first published the name with the essential condition that made it available, a description, and the description was Gurney’s, not Burkenroad’s. The name must be credited to the one who first published the name and described the taxon, in any of its stages. 10. Discussion: Authorship is not ordinarily such a serious matter that exceptions to the Code need be made. It is more important that interpretation and application of the existing relevant rules be objective, consistent, and clear. Indeed, authors should realize that problems and seeming injustices commonly arise from their own carelessness in the dissemination of manuscript names, or of names “‘in press’’ that are unexpectedly delayed in appearance, followed by the innocent assumptions in good faith by correspondents that the names sent them have of course been published. Unfortunate as such cases are for the individuals concerned, there are really not many, and they should not influence automatic application of a consistent rule. 11. Except for Heterotis, which is already the subject of an application to the Commission (Bulletin 24 : 291-3, 1967), the names cited should not be placed on Official Lists. They are used here solely to illustrate the problems of authorship. One of them, or some similar case, could be considered by the Editorial Committee as an example under Article 50 in the new edition of the Code. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 LEPTOSOMATIDAE IN AVES AND NEMATODA: REQUEST TO PLACE LEPTOSOMIDAE BLYTH, 1838 AND LEPTOSOMATIDAE FILIPJEV, 1916 ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N<(S.) 1975 By A. M. Sudilovskaia (Zoological Museum of Moscow State University) and by G. N. Kashin (Moscow) The family-group name LEPTOSOMATIDAE is currently utilized in both Aves (Coraciiformes) and NEMATODA (Enoplida). The name is based on different type-genera and the International Commission is requested to place the valid names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. The details of the case are as follows. USE OF LEPTOSOMATIDAE IN AVES The first person who created a subfamily-name LEPTOSOMINAE on the basis of the generic name Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816 (Aves) was Blyth, 1838, in The Magazine of Natural History, and Journal of Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy, Geology, and Meteorology, 2nd series, volume 2, p. 421. Ch. L. Bonaparte, 1850, Conspectus generum avium, raised the name to the full family rank—LEPTOSOMIDAE—on page 96 of volume I, listed as No. 18 and had repeated the subfamily name as No. 36. From page 97 onwards Bonaparte began to date every issue of eight pages and has dated page 97 with 1849. Therefore, the date of publication of LEPTOSOMIDAE may be either 1849 or 1850. There does not seem to be any evidence that the parts were issued before Ist June 1850 and therefore the year of publication may be considered as 1850. Bonaparte listed the genus Leptosoma Vieillot (sine anno) under the family name and at the same time enumerated synonyms; one of which was Leptosomus Vieillot. Among the synonyms of specific names was discolor Hermann, 1783. Bonaparte’s use of Leptosoma may be considered either as an unjustified emen- dation or an incorrect spelling as Vieillot created the name Leptosomus (1816, Analyse d’une nouvelle ornithologie élémentaire Paris: 28). Vieillot gave no specific name but gave a brief description of the vouroudriou of Madagascar. (Hermann refers in 1783, Tabula Affinitatum Animalium olim academico speci- mene edita: 186, to Buffon, Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, vol. 6, p. 395, where he too mentions the vouroudriou). The generic name has been spelled both as Lepfosoma and Leptosomus by subsequent authors. J. Cabanis and F. Heine, 1862, Museum Heineanum, part 4, p. 57 first used the name Leptosomus with the type-species discolor. P. L. Sclater in an article, 1865, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865 : 682, called ‘‘On the structure of Leptosoma discolor”, used the name Leptosoma Vieillot, although he confirmed that Vieillot in two of his works wrote Leptosomus. He also recog- nised Bonaparte’s family Leptosomidae. O. Des Murs, 1860, Traité général doologie ornithologique: 530 used LEPTOSOMATINAE as family of the tribe CUCULIDAE (sic). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature G. R. Gray (1869, Handlist of genera and species of Birds: 77) used LEPTO- SOMINAE Bonaparte, 1850, as subfamily of the CORACIIDAE, with four genera, among those Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816 (with synonyms, Leptosoma Bonaparte, 1849, Courols Cuvier, 1817 and Crombus Reich., 1849) and the specific name discolor Herm. In 1886, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th edition, vol. 20: 627, in an article, entitled “Roller”, the names Leptosomus discolor and LEPTOSO- MATIDAE were used. R. Bowdler Sharpe (1892, Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, vol. 17:1) has used the name LEPTOSOMATIDAE, with the genus Leptosoma Vieillot, Analyse, p. 28 (1816) and Crombus Reichenb., 1852, (Handb. Merop. p. 51). _ He also quoted Leptosoma discolor Scl. P.Z.S., 1865, p. 682. In 1896, A. Newton in ‘tA dictionary of Birds” mentioned the names LEPTOSOMIDAE, p. 374, and LEPTOSOMATIDAE, p. 638 and 794; Leptosomus pp. 654, 794 and 1058 and Leptosoma pp. 739, 972 and 1072 (Index). J. L. Peters (1945, Checklist of birds of the world, vol. 5 : 293) has used the family-name LEPTOSOMATIDAE with the genus Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816 and specific name discolor Hermann, 1783. The same names were also utilized by A. Landsborough Thomson, 1964, A new dictionary of birds: 150, 171 and 433. A. Wetmore (1930, A systematic classification for the birds of the world and 1960, A classification for the birds of the world) has used LEPTOSOMATIDAE and Leptosoma. He objects to the proposal of Mayr and Amadon (1951, A classification of recent birds, Am. Mus. Novit., No. 1496) to include the rollers in one family, the CORACHDAE, with three subfamilies, one of them being LEPTOSOMATINAE. USE OF LEPTOSOMATIDAE IN NEMATODA In 1916, I. N. Filipjev (Ezheg. zool. Mus. 21 : 59-116) created the sub- family-name LEPTOSOMATINI in which he included the following genera: Leptosomatus Bastian, 1865; Cylicolaimus de Man, 1889; Deontosoma Filipjev, 1916; Thoracostoma Marion, 1870 and Phanoderma Bastian, 1865. The name was raised to family status by De Conninck and Shuurmans Stekhoven (1933, The freeliving marine nemas of the Belgian Coast. Mém. Mus. r. Hist. nat. Belg. 58 : 3-163). Therefore in the interests of stability and uniformity in nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is asked: (1) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names; in Zoology: (a) Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816 (gender: masculine), type-species by selection by J. Cabanis and F. Heine, 1862 (Mus. Hein. 4 : 57): Cuculus discolor Hermann, 1783, (b) Leptosomatum Bastian, 1865 (Trans. Linn. Soc. 25 : 144) (gender: neuter), type-species by original designation, Leptosomatum elongatum Bastian, 1865; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) discolor Hermann, 1783, as published in the binomen Cuculus discolor (type-species of Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816), Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211 (b) elongatum Bastian, 1865, as published in the binomen Leptoso- matum elongatum (type-species of Leptosomatum Bastian, 1865); (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) LEPTOSOMIDAE Blyth, 1838, type-genus Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816, (b) LEPTOSOMATIDAE Filipjev, 1916, type-genus Leptosomatum Bastian, 1865; (4) to place Leptosoma Bona and Invalid Generic Na parte, 1849 on the Official Index of Rejected spelling or unjustified e mes in Zoology, being an incorrect subsequent mendation of Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816; (5) to place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) LEPTOSOMATINAE O. Des Murs, 1860, being an incorrect sub- sequent spelling or an unjustified emendation of LEPTOSOMINAE Blyth, 1838; 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature AMENDMENTS TO AN APPLICATION ON NASSARIIDAE IREDALE, 1916 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1987 By W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) At the request of the Secretariat, additional information pertaining to the application for the proposed conservation of NASSARIIDAE Iredale, 1916, (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29(1) : 62, 1972) is herewith supplied. A taxonomic discussion on the validity of Nassarius Duméril, 1806, has been recently published by this applicant (Cernohorsky, 1972, Rec. Auckl. Inst. Mus. 9:127). The facts are as follows: Iredale (1916, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 12 : 82) in his review of Duméril’s “Zoologie Analytique” of 1806, came to the erroneous conclusion that Nassarius Duméril was a substitute name for Nassa Lamarck, 1799 (non [Réding], 1798—a genus in the family Muricidae), when he stated that ‘“Nassarius—this can only be determined as a new name for Nassa Lamarck, 1799, non Bolten, 1798 [=Réding, 1798]. Duméril’s entry on page 166 of the above-cited work reads ‘Les nassiers (nassarius)’’, nothing more or less, no species were cited nor is there any indication in Duméril’s work that his ““Nassarius” was intended as a replacement name for any prior genus-group name. Nassarius Duméril, 1806, must therefore be interpreted as a genus-group name without included nominal species. Froriep (1806, Duméril’s Analyt. Zool. p. 167) in his German translation of Dumeéril’s original French work, cited the single species Buccinum arcularia Linnaeus, as an example of Duméril’s Nassarius, and it is therefore Buccinum arcularia Linnaeus, 1758, which becomes the type-species of Nassarius Duméril, 1806, by subsequent monotypy by Froriep, 1806. Since additional information has come to light, the prior family-group names including newly discovered ones, are reviewed chronologically: (a) CYCLOPSIDAE Chenu, 1859, Man. Conchyl. 1 : 164 (type-genus Cyclops Montfort, 1810—non Cyclops Mueller, 1776). The name of the type-genus being a homonym, the family-group name is not available. (b) CYCLONASSINAE Gill, 1871, Smiths. Misc. coll. 10(2):5 (type-genus Cyclonassa Swainson, 1840, with its type-species by monotypy Bucci- num neriteum Linnaeus, 1758). The type-genus Cyclonassa Swainson, 1840, is a synonym of Cyclope Risso, 1826 (type-species C. neritoidea Risso, 1826 = Buccinum neriteum Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation by Keen, 1964 —see Opinion 793, 1966, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 227). (c) CYLLENINAE Bellardi, 1882, Mem. R. Accad. Sci. Torino 34 : 159 (type- genus Cyllene Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834, with its type-species C. owenii Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834, by monotypy). The genus-group name Cy//ene is in current valid use, and CYLLENINAE would be utilized in a subfamilial arrangement of the NASSARIIDAE. Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213 (d) DORSANINAE Cossmann, 1901, Ess. paléoc. comp. 4 : 195, 197 (type-genus Dorsanum Gray, 1847, with its type-species Buccinum politum Lamarck, 1822, by subsequent designation by Cossmann, 1901); Carcelles & Parodiz, 1939, Physis, Rev. Soc. Arg. Cienc. Nat. 17 : 745; Klappen- bach 1961, Neotropica 7:87; Rios 1970, Coast. Brazil. seashells p. 92. The genus Dorsanum is in current use in the NASSARIDAE and DORSANINAE would be utilized in a subfamilial arrangement of the family. The genus Dorsanum is considered by most authors to belong to the family Nassariidae, but Rios (1970, op. cit., p. 92) and Penchaszadeh (1971, Neotropica 17 : 49) place Dorsanum, erroneously in the writer’s opinion, in the family BUCCINIDAE. (e) ALECTRIONIDAE Dall, 1908, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Hary. 43 : 306 (type- genus Alectrion Montfort, 1810, with its type-species Buccinum papillosum Linnaeus, 1758, by original designation); Dall 1909, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 37 : 214; Suter 1913, Man. N.Z. Moll. p. 395; Bartsch 1915, U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 91 : 51; Cooke 1917, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 12 : 263; Zetek 1918, Rev. Nueva Cienc. Lit. Art. Panama 5 : 528; Oldroyd, 1924, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 65:11; Oldroyd 1927, Mar. shells w. coast N. Amer. 2 : 263. Alectrion Montfort, is in current use as a subgenus of Nassarius Dumeéril. (f) ARCULARIIDAE Iredale, 1915, J. Conch. 14 (10): 345 (type-genus Arcularia Link, 1807, with its type-species Buccinum arcularia Lin- naeus, 1758, by subsequent designation by Mérch, 1863). The type-genus Arcularia Link, 1807, is an objective synonym of Nassarius Duméril, 1806. The exact date of publication of ARCULARIIDAE is uncertain. On the cover of the Journal is “published August 1915” but at the bottom of the page the year “1916” appears. In a modern arrangement, the subfamilial divison of NASSARIIDAE would be as follows: NASSARIIDAE NASSARIINAE Iredale, 1916 (senior synonyms: CYCLONASSINAE Gill, 1871; ALECTRIONIDAE Dall, 1908 and ARCULARIIDAE Hedley, [1915]) CYLLENINAE Bellardi, 1882 DORSANINAE Cossmann, 1901 Following strictly principles of the Law of Priority, the subfamilial division would be as follows: CYCLONASSIDAE CYCLONASSINAE Gill, 1871 CYLLENINAE Bellardi, 1882 DORSANINAE Cossmann, 1901 The objection against the re-instatement of the oldest name CYCLONASSIDAE as a family-group name is the synonymy of the type-genus Cyclonassa Swainson, 1840 (=Cyclope Risso, 1826), and that the family-group name remained unused, and that the type-species Cyclope neritea (Linnaeus) is an atypical member of the NASSARIIDAE. The three genera which still remain in valid use in nassariid taxonomy are Cyllene Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834, Dorsanuwm Gray, 1847, and Alectrion 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Montfort, 1810 (the latter as a subgenus of Nassarius Dumeéril). Should the Commission decide to apply the principles of the Law of Priority when dealing with this application, then it is suggested that CYCLONASSINAE Gill, 1871, be suppressed and the family-group names validated as follows: CYLLENIDAE CYLLENINAE Bellardi, 1882 DORSANINAE Cossmann, 1901 ALECTRIONINAE Dall, 1908 The Commission is requested to add the following to the original proposals: (2) to place the following family-group name on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology: (d) CYLLENINAE Bellardi, 1882 (type-genus Cy/lene Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834); (3) to place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (e) Cyllene Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834 (gender: feminine), type-species by monotypy Cyllene owenii Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834; (4) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (d) owenii Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834, as published in the binomen Cyllene owenii. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 ALCIDAE (EX ALCADAE) ANON. 1820 (AVES) AND ALCEIDAE (EX ALCEDAE) BROOKES, 1828 (MAMMALIA): REQUEST FOR ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 2011 By G. N. Kashin (Moscow) The name ALCINAE has been used for the sub-family of auks, based on the generic name Alca Linnaeus, 1758 and for the sub-family of elks, based on the generic name Alces J. E. Gray, 1821. Thirteen different names have been used for the supra-generic taxa of auk-like birds, of which I list the principal forms: ALCADAE Anonymous, 1820; ALCIDAE and ALCINAE Bonaparte, 1831 and aLcini Lilljeborg, 1866. The earliest family-group name, ALCADAE, was published anonymously in the Seventeenth Edition of the Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum, 1820 : 68. This was presumably written by the Keeper or Assistant Keeper of the day, posts held by Charles K6nig and Dr. W. E. Leach. Dr. Leach was, in fact, the Assistant Librarian and it seems that he was responsible for the Zoological Collections. There are several reports by Dr. Leach in 1820, on acquistions of birds, although there is no indication on the copy of the Synopsis of his authorship. J. E. Gray, 1872 (Catalogue of Ruminant Mammalia (Pecora Linnaeus) in the British Museum) also used the family name ALCADAE (based on Alces) and prior to this Brookes, 1828 (Cat. Anat. Zool. Mus. : 62) used ALCEDAE. In accordance with the Code Article 29, the two family names should be corrected as follows: ALCIDAE for Al/ca Linnaeus, 1758 and ALCEIDAE for Alces Gray, 1821. Therefore, I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to: (1) place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) ALCIDAE (ex ALCADAE) Anon., 1820, type-genus A/ca Linnaeus, 1758 (Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, No. 691, Opinion 271, supplementary to Opinion 16); (b) ALCEIDAE (ex ALCEDAE) Brookes, 1828, typ-genus Alces Gray, 1821 (Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, No. 385, Opinion 91 Directions 10 & 22). (2) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. : (a) ALCADAE Anonymous, 1820 (Synopsis of the contents of the contents of the British Museum, 17th edition: 68); (b) ALCEDAE Brookes, 1828 (Cat. Anat. Zool. Mus.: 62). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CALOMICRUS TAENIATUS WOLLASTON, 1867 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2012 By Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum of the University, Helsingfors, Finland) 1. T. V. Wollaston (1867 : 145) described from the Cape Verde Islands a species called Calomicrus taeniatus. The description was fairly long and complete, making the identification of the species in question easy. In the collections of the British Museum (Natural History) there is a long series of syntypes. 2. L. Fairmaire (1880a : 317) described the species Luperus quaternus from Madagascar. The description was rather short, but gave the essential characters. Later he (Fairmaire 1880b : 340) gave a more complete des- cription, also restricting the type locality to Nossi-Bé. The holotype of L. quaternus is situated in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, in the Allard collection. 3. Recent investigation, including study of the types, has shown that both these names refer to one and the same species, which is distributed widely over tropical Africa. Priority would demand that the name faeniatus be used for this species. 4. Since the description, the name faeniatus has not been used in a single systematic work, nor indeed anywhere but the World Catalogue (Weise 1924 : 123) where it was listed as Luperus taeniatus, and its supplement (Wilcox 1973 : 433), where it was listed as Medythia taeniatus. Contrastingly, the name quaternus has been used by a number of authors in many works of both syste- matic and applied entomology, during the last fifty years for instance in the following (the list is not exhaustive): Luperodes quaternus Fairm., Weise, 1927 : 19; Laboissiére, 1931 : 26; Jepson, 1948 : 235; Bryant, 1956 : 408; Bryant, 1957 : 362; Bryant, 1958 : 46; Bryant, 1959 : 7; LePelley, 1959 : 13; Bryant, 1960 : 356; Bryant, 1963 : 94; Forsyth, 1966 : 57; Schmutterer, 1969 : 34. Paralu- perodes quaternus Fairm., Laboissiére, 1937 : 167; Laboissiére, 1940 : 47. Medythia quaterna Fairm., Wilcox, 1973 : 433. Obviously, to revive for this common and at least potentially noxious species a name that has been unused for a century and more could only lead to con- fusion. It is therefore requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name taeniatus Wollaston 1867, as published in the binomen Calomicrus taeniatus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the specific name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217 (3) place the specific name quaternus Fairmaire, 1880, as published in the binomen Luperus quaternus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BryANT, G.E. 1956. Contributions 41’étude de la faune entomologique du Ruanda- Urundi (Mission P. Basilewsky 1953). XCVII. Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Donaciinae, Criocerinae, Megalopodinae, Clytrinae, Cryptocephalinae (part.), Eumolpinae and Galerucinae. Ann. Mus. Congo. Zool. 51 : 395-412 — 1957. Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae of South-West Arabia. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (12) 10 : 353-363 — 1958. Galerucinae (Coleoptera Chrysomelidae). Explor. Parc. Nat. Upemba. Miss. de Witte. 49 : 41-65 — 1959. Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae. Ruwenzori Exped. 1952 IL : 1-15 — 1960. Mission zoologique del’ I.R.S.A.C. en Afrique orientale (P. Basilewsky et N. Leleup, 1957) XXI. Coleoptera Chrysomelidae. Ann. Mus. Congo. Zool. 81 : 342-368 —— 1963. Galerucinae (Coleoptera Chrysomelidae). Explor. Parc Nat. Garamba, Miss. de Saeger 40 : 77-130 FAirRMAIRE, L. 1880a. Diagnoses de Coléoptéres de Madagascar. Naturaliste 2: 316-317 — 1880b. Description de quelques Coléoptéres de Nossi-Bé. Ann. Soc. ent. France (Ser. 5) 10 : 321-340 ForsyTH, J. 1966. Agricultural insects of Ghana. Ghana Universities Press, Accra, 163 pp. Jepson, W. F. 1948. An annotated list of insects associated with ground-nuts in East Africa. Bull. ent. Res. 39 : 231-236 LABOISSIERE, V. 1931. Contributions a1’étude dela faune de Mozambique. Voyage de M. P. Lesne (1928-1929). 4°® Note, Coléoptéres, Galerucini. Mem. Estud. Mus. Zool. Univ. Coimbra (1) 48, 55 pp. — 1937. Galerucinae africains de la collection du Musée Civique de Génes. Deuxiéme note. Ann. Assoc. Nat. Levallois-Perret 22 : 139-184 — 1940. Galerucinae (Coleoptera Phytophaga) Fam. Chrysomelidae. Explor. Parc Nat. Albert, Miss. de Witte (1933-1935) 31 : 1-93 LePevtey, R. H. 1959. Agricultural insects of East Africa. E. A. High Comm. Nairobi, 307 pp. SCHMUTTERER, H. 1969. Pests of crops in Northeast and Central Africa. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 296 pp. WeEIsE, J. 1924. Chrysomelidae: 13. Galerucinae. Coleopt. Cat. 78, 225 pp. — 1927. Uber bekannte und neue Chrysomeliden und Coccinelliden aus dem Reichsmuseum zu Stockholm. Ark. Zool. 18A : 34, 34 pp. Witcox, J. A. 1973. Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae. Luperini: Luperina. Coleopt. Cat., Suppl. 78 (ed. sec.): 433-664 WoLtastTon, T. V. 1867. Coleoptera Hesperidum, being an enumeration of the coleopterous insects of the Cape Verde archipelago. J. van Voorst. London, 285 pp. 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF XIPHIDIUM GLABERRIMUM BURMEISTER, 1838, AND ORCHELIMUM CUTICULARE AUDINET-SERVILLE, 1838, AND PROPOSED ADDITION OF ORCHELIMUM VULGARE HARRIS, 1841, TO THE OFFICIAL LISTS (INSECTA, GRYLLOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 2060 By V. R. Vickery (Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory, Macdonald Campus, McGill University, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Province of Quebec, Canada, H9X 3M1) The object of this submission is to stabilize Orchelimum vulgare Harris 1841, a name which has had uninterrupted use for 64 years. Prior to 1915, two names, Orchelimum glaberrimum (Burmeister, 1838) and Orchelimum yulgare Harris, 1841, were confused (Rehn and Hebard, 1915). Rehn and Hebard (op. cit.) synonymized Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet- Serville 1838, with O. glaberrimum and, in error, also included Orchelimum erythrocephalum Davis 1905. They stated that the types of both glaberrimum and cuticulare were lost. A search of repositories in Europe, during 1973, revealed that the type of cuticulare is indeed lost. However, the specimens used by Burmeister in describing glaberrimum were found, not in Halle where they were supposed to have been deposited, but in the Zoologisches Museum fiir Naturkunde, Humboldt Universitat, Berlin. There is no doubt regarding the identity of the specimens. However, they are conspecific with O. vulgare Harris, not with O. erythrocephalum Davis, as Rehn and Hebard (op. cit.) had indicated. Vickery and Johnstone (1974) pointed out the synonymy of the two names; designated a lectotype for Xiphidium glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838; designated the same specimen as neotype for Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838; designated a neotype for Orchelimum vulgare Harris 1841; and removed Orchelimum erythrocephalum Davis, 1905, from synonymy with O. glaberrimum. Vickery and Johnstone (op. cit.) also stated clearly that the name vulgare should continue to be used for the species in question pending a submission to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress glaberrimum and cuticulare. The name glaberrimum was in a confused state prior to 1915 (Rehn and Hebard, 1915), and since that time has been misapplied (to erythrocephalum) by the few authors who used it. Blatchley (1920) mentioned but did not accept the name. In contrast, the name vulgare has been in continuous use and, since 1915, has not been confused with other names (Blatchley, 1920; Hebard 1925, 1932; Hendrickson, 1928, 1930; Knutson and Jaques, 1935; Urquhart, 1941a, 1941b; Froeschner 1954; Walker in Urquhart, 1957; Vickery and Kevan, 1967 and others). The name cuticulare has not appeared in the literature except as a junior synonym (Rehn and Hebard, 1915; Blatchley, 1920) and designation as type species of Orchelimum by Kirby (1906). Article 23 (a-b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature states that application of the Law of Priority should not “disturb stability” Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219 or “cause confusion”. The application of priority in the case at hand would disrupt stability and cause confusion. Therefore, the Commission is petitioned to take the following actions: (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) glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen Xiphidium glaberrimum (Handb. Ent. 2 (2), Pt 1 : 707); (b) cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838, as published in the binomen Orchelimum cuticulare (Hist. nat. Insectes Orth.: 523-524); (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the name Orchelimum Audinet-Serville, 1838 (gender: neuter) type-species by subsequent designation by Kirby, 1906 (Syn. Cat. Orth. II. Orth. Salt. 1 : 273) Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the name vulgare Harris, 1841, as published in the binomen Orchelimum vulgare (Rept. Ins. Mass. inj. Veg., p. 130); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen Xiphid- ium glaberrimum and suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above; (b) cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838, as published in the binomen Orchelimum cuticulare and suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above. REFERENCES Those references marked with an asterisk fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 79(b) for the suppression of unused senior synonyms. AUDINET-SERVILLE, J. G. 1838. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Orthoptéres, Paris. 776 pp., 14 pl. BLATCHLEY, W. S. 1920. Orthoptera of Northeastern America, Nature Publ. Co., Indianapolis, U.S.A. 1784 pp. Burmeister, H. 1838. Handbuch der Entomologie 2 (2), pt. 1. Berlin Davis, W. T. 1905. The Red-headed Orchelimum and some other New Jersey Orthoptera. Can. Ent. 37 : 288-289 *FROESCHNER, R. C. 1954. The Grasshoppers and other Orthoptera of Lowa. Iowa St. Coll. J. Sci. 29 : 163-354 *HeBARD, M. 1925. The Orthoptera of South Dakota. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Phila. 77 : 33-155 *___ 1932. The Orthoptera of Minnesota. Univ. Minn. agr. exp. Sta. tech. Bull. 85 : 1-161 *HENDRICKSON, G. O. 1928. Some notes on the insect fauna of an Iowa prairie. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 31 : 132-138 he 1930. Studies on the fauna of Iowa prairies. Jowa St. Coll. J. Sci. 4 : 49-179 Kirpy, W. F. 1906. Orthoptera Saltatoria. Part 1 (Achetidae et Phasgonuridae). A Synonymic Catalogue of Orthoptera. London 2, 562 pp. *KNnuTSON, H., & JAques, H. E. 1935. A revised list of the Orthoptera of Lowa. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 42 : 179-184 E 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REHN, J. A. G., & HEBARD, M. 1915. Studies in American Tettigoniidae (Orthop- tera). IV. A Synopsis of the Species of the Genus Orchelimum. Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 41 : 11-83 *UrQquuart, F. A. 1941a. An ecological study of the Saltatoria of Point Pelee, Ontario. Univ. Toronto Stud. biol. Ser. 50 : 1-91 4 1941b. The Blattaria and Orthoptera of Essex County, Ontario. Contrib. R. Ont. Mus. Zool. 20 : 1-32 *VICKERY, V. R., & KEVAN, D.K. McE. 1967. Records of the Orthopteroid Insects in Ontario. Proc. ent. Soc. Ont. 97 : 13-68 — & Jounstone, D. E. 1974. Changes in synonymy in Orchelimum Audinet- Serville, 1838 (Grylloptera: Tettigonioidea: Conocephalidae). Can. Ent. 106 : 423-428 *WALKER, E. M. 1957. Changes in the Insect Fauna of Ontario (with special reference to the Orthoptera) im Urquhart, F. A. (ed.). Changes in the Fauna of Ontario. R. Ont. Mus. Univ. Toronto Press, pp. 4-12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 REQUEST FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF SIGNIPHORA GIRAULTI CRAWFORD, 1913 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA) AS TYPE-SPECIES OF KERRICHIELLA ROSANOV, 1965. Z.N.(S.) 2063 By B. R. Subba Rao (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) In 1965, Rosanov erected the genus Kerrichiella and designated Signiphora giraulti Crawford, 1913 as the type-species. He included no other species. The type-species had been described by Crawford (1913) from Trinidad, where it was reared from the mealybug Planococcus citri (Risso). When Rosanov described Kerrichiella he had a specimen of Thysanus coleoptratus in front of him and assumed that Signiphora giraulti was the senior synonym of this species. He states (1965, p. 509): “The present author [Rosanov] is convinced that Thysanus coleoptratus Kerrich (1953), described from the same island and the same host [Trinidad and Planococcus citri], is a synonym of S. giraulti Crwf. The author has been able to examine the female and male of Thysanus coleop- tratus which were kindly sent to M. N. Nikol’skaya by Dr. G. J. Kerrich. The single-segmented funicle which is unique among the Signiphoridae, the dis- tinctive features of the head (the frons overhanging the face and concealing the antennae), the unusual shape of the body and the unusually long phallus of the male, which are all characters of S. giraulti Crwf. appear to warrant the establishment of a new genus, which has been named after Kerrich’’. _ During the preparation of a paper on some species of Signiphoridae I observed that Rosanoy misidentified Signiphora giraulti. Rosanov’s des- cription of Kerrichiella and the figures presented are in fact of Thysanus coleop- tratus Kerrich. On my request, my colleague, Dr. Zdenék Bouéek, on his recent visit to the United States National Museum compared the paratypes of T. coleoptratus with the type of S. giraulti and made notes and free hand drawings of the latter species for my use. My studies have revealed that Signiphora giraulti Crawford is not only a different species but also belongs to a different genus (new) which if this application is successful, I will dedicate to Dr. Rosanoy. Under the Code, Article 70(a), The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress all previous type designations for Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965, and to designate Thysanus coleoptratus Kerrich, 1953, as type-species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the generic name Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965 (gender: feminine) type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Thysanus coleop- tratus Kerrich, 1953; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the specific name coleoptratus Kerrich, 1953 as published in the binomen Thysanus coleoptratus. REFERENCES CRAWFORD, J. C. 1913. Descriptions of new Hymenoptera, No. 8. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 46 : 343-352 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Kerricu, G. J. 1953. Report on Encyrtidae associated with mealybugs on Cacao in Trinidad and some other species related thereto. Bull. ent. Res. 44 : 789-810 Rosanov, L. V. 1965. Review of the genera of parasitic Hymenoptera of the family Signiphoridae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Ent. Obozr. Moscow 44 : 866- 884 [Translated in Ent. Rev. 44 : 508-516] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 ECHIS COLORATUS GUNTHER 1878 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.NAS.) 2064 By Andrew F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London) Giinther (1878: 977) described a new species of carpet viper from Midian, Northeastern Arabia under the name Echis colorata. This name, emended to Echis coloratus (the gender of Echis being in fact masculine), was used by Boulenger (1896: 507) for one of the two species that he considered belonged to the genus. Since 1896 more than 30 authors in over 50 publications have accepted this name without question, among them being the faunal lists of Anderson (1896: 83), Flower (1933: 835), Parker (1949: 105), Schmidt & Marx (1956: 36), Klemmer (1963: 376), Mendelssohn (1965: 185), Corkill & Cochrane (1966: 502) and the medically important papers of Klibansky et al. (1966), Moroz et al. (1966), Sandbank & Djaldetti (1966) and Fainaru et al. (1970). 2. Echis froenata was described by Duméril, Bibron & Dumeéril in 1854 (p. 1449) and has not subsequently been used as a senior synonym. It was placed in the synonymy of Echis carinatus (Schneider 1801: 285) by Boulenger (1896: 505) who appears not to have seen the type specimen. His decision was doubtless influenced by the fact that the type locality, Egypt, was outside the range then known for Echis coloratus whose presence in that country was not established until four years later (Anderson 1900: 419). 3. Through the courtesy of Professor J. Guibé of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, | have been able to examine the holotype of Echis froenata which is clearly not an example of Echis carinatus. It is a female with 33 dorsals at midbody, 198 ventrals, 45 pairs of subcaudals, 14 supralabials, 3 series of scales between the eye and supralabials, 19 (right) and 18 (left) scales around the eye, no elongate supraocular, 14 scales between the eyes, nostril well separated from the rostral and first supralabial, and obtusely keeled suprace- phalic scales. There is little doubt that it is assignable to the species generally known as Echis coloratus. 4. Thus if the Law of Priority were applied the well established name Echis coloratus Giinther 1878 would have to be replaced by the almost forgotten name Echis froenatus Dumeéril, Bibron & Dumeril 1854. 5. This undesirable nomenclatural change could be prevented by placing Echis froenata on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. However, in my opinion this would not be entirely satisfactory. Recent taxonomic work has led to the recognition of several subspecies in Echis carinatus and future work may result in a similar splitting of Echis coloratus. If this were to occur Echis froenatus could possibly become available for a taxon subspecifically, or even specifically, distinct from Echis coloratus. 6. In the interests of nomenclatural stability the Commission is therefore requested to use its plenary powers (1) to place the specific name coloratus Giinther, 1878, as used in the com- bination Echis colorata (sic), on the Official List of Specific Names in Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Zoology with the direction that it is to be used in preference to Echis froenatus Duméril, Bibron & Duméril by any zoologist who considers those names to apply to the same species-group taxon; (2) to place the specific name froenatus Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854, as used in the combination Echis froenata (sic), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the direction that it not be given preference over Echis coloratus Giinther by any zoologist who con- siders those names to apply to the same species-group taxon. REFERENCES ANDERSON, J. 1896. A Contribution to the Herpetology of Arabia. 122pp. London, R. H. Porter ANDERSON, J. 1900. On the Presence of Echis coloratus, Giinther, in Africa. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist (7) 6 : 419-425 BouLenGerR, G. A. 1896. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History). Vol. 3, XIV + 727 pp. London CorkILL, N. L. and Cocurang, J. A. 1966. The Snakes of the Arabian Peninsula and Socotra. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 62 : 475-506 DumeriL, A. M. C., Bipron, G. and DumeErIL, A. 1854. Erpétologie Générale ou Histoire Naturelle compléte des Reptiles. Vol. 7, xvi + 1536 pp. Paris, Roret FAINARU, M., MANNY, N., HeRsHKO, C. and EIseNBERG, S. 1970. Defibrination following Echis colorata bite in man. Israel J. med. Sci. 6 : 720-725 Fiower, S.S. 1933. Notes on the Recent Reptiles and Amphibians of Egypt, with a List of Species recorded from that Kingdom. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.: 735-851 GUnTHeER, A. 1878. On Reptiles from Midian collected by Major Burton. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.: 977-978 KLemMMER, K. 1963. Liste der rezenten Giftschlangen. In Die Giftschlangen der Erde: 253-464. Marburg/Lahn KLIBANSKY, C., OZCAN, E., JosHuA, H., DJALDETTI, M., BESSLER, H. and DE VRIES, A. 1966. Intravascular hemolysis in dogs induced by Echis coloratus venom. Toxicon 3 : 213-221 MENDELSSOHN, H. 1965. On the biology of the venomous snakes of Israel. IL. Israel J. Zool. 14 ; 185-212 Moroz, C., DE Vries, A. and GoLpBLuM, N. 1966. Preparation of horse antiserum against Echis colorata (Giinther) venom and determination of its capacity to neutralize the toxic, afibrinogenemic and thrombocytopenic actions of Echis colorata and Echis carinata venoms. Annls Inst. Pasteur, Paris 110 : 276-282 ParKER, H. W. 1949. The Snakes of Somaliland and the Sokotra Islands. Zool. Verh. Leiden 6 : 1-115 SANDBANK, U. and DsALpeTT!I, M. 1966. Effect of Echis colorata venom inoculation on the nervous system of the dog and guinea pig. Acta neuropathol. 6 : 61-69 ScumipT, K. P. and Marx, H. 1956. The Herpetology of Sinai. Fie/diana Zool. 39 : 21-40 SCHNEIDER, J. G. 1801. Historiae Amphibiorum naturalis et literariae. Vol. 2, vi + 364 pp. Jena, F. Frommann Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 APPLICATION FOR A RULING ON THE AVAILABILITY OF FIVE SPECIFIC NAMES PROPOSED AS NEW FOR THE GENUS HETERODERA A. SCHMIDT, 1871 (NEMATODA) IN “A PRELIMINARY KEY TO BRITISH SPECIES OF HETERODERA FOR USE IN SOIL EXAMINATION” BY B. A. COOPER, 1955. Z.N.(S.) 2066 By A. R. Stone (Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts., England) In 1955, in his paper “‘A preliminary key to British species of Heterodera for use in soil examination”, B. A. Cooper introduced five new specific names in the genus Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871. The species concerned are Heterodera bifenestra, H. limonii, H. methwoldensis, H. polygoni and H. urticae. They are mentioned in the key and in the text, and in some cases, sketches of part of one stage of the life history are included but full descriptions, differential diagnoses and the naming of type-specimens and type-localities are absent. Wherever these specific names are mentioned they always appear in quotes e.g. on page 273, lines 9-10, “At cyst formation, the fenestra in H. major, schachtii, trifolii, galeopsidis, and ‘limonii’ appears to be membranous . . .” Some nematologists have not accepted these names (e.g. Hesling, 1965) while others have accepted them and provided more detailed descriptions (e.g. Pogosyan, 1962 and Mathews, 1970 for H. urticae and Kir’janova & Krall, 1971 for H. bifenestra). So far as I am aware no further descriptions of H. limonii, H. methwoldensis and H. polygoni have been published. I believe that Cooper’s publication may not meet the requirement for description of new species, if so the five species names as published in 1955 are unavailable. The later descriptions of urticae and bifenestra published by the other authors are adequate except that type-specimens are not desig- nated. Pogosyan (1962) commented that Cooper had designated a new Heterodera species H. urticae but that a full description and differential diag- nosis were absent and gave a description of ‘“Heterodera urticae Cooper, 1955” based on material collected in Armenia. Mathews (1970) also provided a full description using Cooper’s material. Mathews pointed out that differen- ces exist between the nematode described by Pogosyan and that called H. “urticae”’ by Cooper. In fact the differences between the two descriptions are substantial and include a number of characters considered to be of impor- tance in the differentiation of species in this genus (notably body and stylet length of second stage larvae, the position of the dorsal oesophageal gland duct junction in second stage larvae and the fenestration of the cysts). From her description Pogosyan’s material seems close to that of H. humuli Filipjev, 1934 but she states that it differs from the latter species in having smaller eggs and cysts. In fact the morphometrics in Pogosyan’s account fall within the ranges reported in the literature for H. humuli (notably by Franklin, 1951, Simon, 1958, De Grisse and Gillard, 1963, and Sen and Jensen, 1967) and the cyst fenestration also resembles that of H. humuli. Pogosyan does however Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature report hosts for this nematode which have not been reported elsewhere for H. humuli or H. urticae. Apparently Pogosyan’s description is of material properly called H. humuli and is not the same nematode referred to by Cooper and Mathews as H. urticae. In a letter to me of 6th March 1974, Mr. R. V. Melville made the following points: “The date of the paper is certainly important, since it is only after 1960 that names proposed conditionally (as these are) are unavailable under the Code (see Article 15). In my view (though I admit that there is room for other views), the names ought to be treated as unavailable for the following reasons: 1. The author states on page 276 that the names are proposed conditionally and may not be those adopted in the “ultimate description”. It therefore follows that he did not consider his 1955 publication as sufficient to make the names available. 2. The editor, Dr. Kevan, himself no mean nomenclaturist, says in a footnote to page 276 that the names should not, in fact, be regarded as having any nomenclatorial status as of that date (1955). 3. It is therefore possible to consider that the names were “proposed for other than taxonomic use” in 1955 (namely, as temporary and provisional means of reference). As such, they would be excluded under Article 1 of the Code. 4. The author’s reference to an “ultimate description” suggests that he does not consider his 1955 paper as satisfying the requirements of Article 13 (a)(i). This provision is a fruitful source of controversy: in effect it throws on the individual zoologist the responsibility of observing the highest standards of descriptive work practised in his group. I am therefore guessing here at what was in the author’s mind. I think that in some groups a key would be thought to be just the kind of thing to satisfy that provision”. In Mr. Melville’s view therefore, the names in question become available only when they have been made so by later authors; and they should be cited with those authors and the dates of the work in question, not with “Cooper, 1955”. Therefore, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is formally requested to: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name urticae Pogosyan, 1962 for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and for the Law of Homonymy; (2) declare that the specific names bifenestra, limonii, methwoldensis, polygoni, and urticae as published in the binomina Heterodera_ bifenestra, Heterodera limonii, Heterodera methwoldensis, Heterodera polygoni and Heterodera urticae in the paper by B. A. Cooper, 1955 “A pre- liminary key to British species of Heterodera for use in soil examina- tion”, pages 269-280, in D. K. McE. Kevan (Ed.) Soil Zoology, Proceedings of the University of Nottingham Second Easter School in Agricultural Science, Butterworths, are not available for use in 1 See Sabrosky, C. W. (1972, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 131-134). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 zoological nomenclature, by reason of the fact that they were not proposed for taxonomic use; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) urticae Mathews, 1970 as published in the binomen Heterodera urticae ; (b) bifenestra Kiryanova & Krall, 1971, as published in the binomen Heterodera bifenestra; (4) to place; (a) the specific name urticae Pogosyan, 1962, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, and published in the binomen Heterodera urticae on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, and (b) the names declared unavailable in (2) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES Cooper, B. A. 1965. A preliminary key to British species of Heterodera for use in soil examination. Soil zoology: Proceedings of the University of Nottingham Second Easter School in Agricultural Science, 1955; ed. D. K. McE. Kevan. Butterworths, Lond.: 269-280 De Grisse, A., & GILLARD, A. 1963. Morphology and biology of hop cyst eelworm (Heterodera humuli Filipjev, 1934). Nematologica 9 : 41-48 FRANKLIN, M. T. 1951. The cyst-forming species of Heterodera. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, 147 pp. Hestinc, J. J. 1965. Plant Nematology, Chapter 7. Heterodera, Morphology and Identification. Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish Fd. No. 7, 2nd Ed.: 103-130 Kir’yANOVA, E. S., & KRALL, E. L. 1971. [Parasitic nematodes of plants and their control. Vol. If}. Leningrad: Izdate!l’stvo “‘Nauka”, 522 pp. MatHews, H. J. P. 1970. Morphology of the nettle cyst nematode Heterodera urticae Cooper, 1955. Nematologica 16 : 503-510 PoGosyAn, E. E. 1962. [The incidence of nematodes of the family Heteroderidae (Nematoda) in the Armenian S.S.R.]. Nematodes harmful to agriculture and their control. Proc. 5th all-union conference phytohelminthologists, Samarkand, 1960: 228-250 Sen, A. K., & Jensen, H. J. 1967. An amended description of larvae and males of Heterodera humuli Filipjev, 1934. _Nematologica 13 : 378-384 Simon, L. 1958. Nematologische Untersuchungen an Hopfen. If. Zur Mor- phologie und Biologie von Heterodera humuli Filipjev, 1934. Nematologica 3 : 269-273 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature THRIPS RUFA GMELIN, 1790 (INSECTA, THYSANOPTERA, THRIPIDAE): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS SO AS TO VALIDATE T. RUFA HALIDAY, 1836. Z.N.(S.) 2067 By L. A. Mound & J. M. Palmer (British Museum (Natural History), London) 1. The Commission is requested to suppress the name Thrips rufa Gmelin, 1790, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy so as to validate the name Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa Haliday, 1836. 2. The complete reference in Gmelin (1790: 2224) is “Thr. rufa. v. Gleichen Neustes in Reich der Pflanz. t.16.f.6.7._ Habitat in tritici spicis, an forsan larva minutissimae?’ (The gender of Thrips is, however, masculine). 3. Haliday (1836: 445) erected Aptinothrips as a sub-genus of Thrips with an unequivocal definition considering that he is referring only to the British fauna: ‘“‘antennae articulus 6S, apice attenuatus, absque stylo articulato’’. Haliday placed two species in this subgenus “Thr. Apt. rufa’ [sic] and “Thr. Apt. nitudula” [sic], and these were distinguished by their colour differences. 4. Under the name rufa, Haliday gives the references to Gmelin and Gleichen referred to above (2), and also the only subsequent reference; Nicholson (1805: 224, fig. 1), which is an unnamed figure. 5. All subsequent authors have used the name rufa in the sense of Haliday but have referred to it as “‘rufa Gmelin’. This species is the type-species of the genus Aptinothrips by subsequent designation by Westwood (1838, p. 46). It is widespread in the temperate parts of the world where it is a minor pest of cereals and grasses, and there is a considerable body of literature referring to it. 6. Unfortunately the figure in Gleichen referred to by Gmelin is a clear coloured illustration of a bright red larva belonging to the family Phlaeo- thripidae, whereas rufa Haliday belongs in the Thripidae. The fact that rufa Gmelin was not an Aptinothrips in the sense of Haliday was first pointed out by Trybom (1894; 43) but this was ignored by subsequent authors. Judging from the host plant the figure by Gleichen probably depicts the common European cereal pest Haplothrips tritici Kurdjumov, 1912, although there are other species associated with Gramineae in Europe. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to: (a) suppress the specific name rufa Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Thrips rufa for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy and (b) to set aside all previous type fixations for Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836 and to designate Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa Haliday, 1836 as type-species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836 (gender: masculine), type-species Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa Haliday, 1836 designated under the plenary powers in 1(b) above; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the specific name rufus Haliday, emendation of Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa Haliday, 1836; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names, rufa Gmelin, 1790 as suppressed in (1)(a) above. REFERENCES GLEICHEN, W. F. von. 1764. Das neuests aus dem Reiche der Pflanzen . . .Niirnberg. 50 pls. col. [Original not studied, only available copy French translation, 1790, Nuremberg] GMELIN, J. F. 1790. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae. Tom. 1. Pars. IV: 1517-2224 Hauipay, A. H. 1836. An epitome of the British genera in the order Thysanoptera, with indications of a few of the species. Entomological Magazine 3 : 439- 451 Kurpsumoy, N. B. 1912. Two Anthothrips injurious to the cereals (with description of a new species) [in Russian]. Trudy Poltavskoi Selsko-Khoziaistvenno opytnoi Stancii 6 : 1-44 NicHotson, W. 1805. A Journal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry and the Arts. J. nat. Philos. 12 ;: 224. Pl. VII. Fig. 1 TrysBom, F. 1894. Jakttagelser om Blasfotingar (Physapoder) fran Sommaren 1893. Ent. Tidskr. 1894-5 : 41-58 WEstwoop, J. O. 1838. Synopsis of the genera of British Insects. In: Westwood, J.O. 1840. An introduction to modern British Insects. London 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NAME XYLEBORUS EICHHOFF, 1864 (INSECTA: COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2069 By Stephen L. Wood (Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah) Phloeotrogus Motschulsky (1863 : 512) was described to include P. oblique- caudata Motschulsky, 1863, and as a doubtfully placed species, Bostrichus mutilatus Walker, 1859. Since the latter species clearly is a species inquirenda, it is automatically excluded from consideration as the type-species of the genus (Article 67h); consequently, Phloeotrogus is monotypic. The type- specimen of obliquecaudata was examined (Wood, 1969 : 119) and was found to be congeneric with Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864; it belongs to the same sub- generic group as Ambrosiodmus Hopkins, 1915. 2. More than 1500 nominal species have been assigned to Xyleborus. Only two species have been assigned to Phloeotrogus and these have been either incorrectly identified or cited a total of four times as species of Xyleborus. Xyleborus contains numerous species of economic importance and has been cited in the literature many thousands of times. 3. Xyleborus is the type-genus of the family-group name XYLEBORINI, originally established as XYLEBORIDAE Eichhoff, 1878; subjective junior synonyms include Anisandrus Ferrari, 1867, Anaeretus Dugés, 1888, Progenius Blandford, 1896, Mesoscolytus Brown, 1904, Cyclohipidion Hagedorn, 1912, Heteroborips Reitter, 1913, Xy/eborips Reitter, 1913, Ewwallacea Hopkins, 1915, Ambrosio- dmus Hopkins, 1915, Terminalinus Hopkins, 1915, Boroxylon Hopkins, 1915, Cryptoxyleborus Schedl, 1937, and Streptocranus Schedl, 1939. There are no family-group names based on Phloeotrogus. Xyleborus is already on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, Name No. 1789 (Opinion 848). 4. In order to preserve nomenclatural stability, the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Phloeotrogus Motschulsky, 1863, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Phloeotrogus Motschulsky, 1863, sup- pressed under the plenary powers in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology monographus Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Bostrichus monographus (type-species of Yy/eborus, 1864). REFERENCES Eicuuorr, W. J. 1864. Ueber die Mundtheile und die Fiihlerbildung der europais- chen Xylophagi sens. strict. Berl. Ent. Z. 8 : 17-46 LacorpaireE, J. T. 1866. Histoire naturelle des insectes: Genera des coléoptéres ou exposé méthodique et critique de tous les genres proposés jusqu’ici dans cet ordre d’insectes. Paris. Vol. 7, 620 p. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 MOTSCHULSKY, V. VON. 1860. Coléoptéres de la Sibérie orientale et en particulier Ges.rinesede VAmour. Jn: Schrenck, Reisen und forschungen im Amur-Lande — 1863. Essai d’un catalogue des insectes de Vile Ceylan. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscou 36 : 421-432 —— 1866. Essai d’un catalogue des insectes de Vile Ceylan. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscou 39 : 393-446 Woop, S. L. 1969. New synonymy and records of Platypodidae and Scolytidae (Coleoptera). Gt. Basin Nat. 29 : 113-128 CITATIONS OF X YLEBORUS EICHHOFF, 1864 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 79(b) BALAcHOwsky, A. 1949. Coléoptéres Scolytides. Faune France 50 : 221. Bricut, D. E., Jr. 1968. Review of the tribe Xyleborini in America north of Mexico (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Ent. 100 : 1296 Browne, F. G. 1961. The biology of Malayan Scolytidae and Platypodidae. Malay. Forest Ins. No. 22: 100 Eccers, H. 1929. Zur Synonymie der Borkenkifer ({pidae, Col.). Wien. ent. Ztg. 46 : 47 Murayama, J. J. 1961. Check list of the Ipidae and Platypodidae from Kyushu. Entomology Laboratory, University of Osaka Prefecture, Publication No. Nosucat, A. 1969. A comparative morphological study of the proventriculus in the adult of the superfamily Scolytoidea (Coleoptera). Bulletin of the Goyern- ment Forest Experiment Station, Tokyo 224 : 61 NunserGc, M. 1963. Die Gattung Xy/eborus Eichhoff (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Annals Mus. r. Afr. cent. (Sci. Zool., Ser. 8), No. 115, 127 p. SCHEDL, K. E. 1962. Scolytidae und Platypodidae Afrikas. Revta Ent. Mocgamb. 5: 102 SPESSIVTSEFF, P. 1925. Fam. Barkborrar: 28 Coleoptera. Svensk Insektfauna 9(3) : 179 Woop, S. L. 1974. New species of American bark beetles (Scolytidae: Coleoptera). Brigham Young Univ. Sci. Bull. (Biol. Ser.) 19(1) : 32 Note:—This application is supported by Prof. Dr. Karl E. Schedl (Lienz, Austria); Prof. Dr. Ant. Pfeffer (Prague, Czechoslovakia); J. J. Menier (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France). 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NAME DRYOCOETES EICHHOFF, 1864 (INSECTA: COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE) ZNQ(S.) 2070 By Stephen L. Wood (Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah) Motschulsky (1860 : 155) named and characterized the genus Anodius to which he assigned Bostrichus autographus Ratzeburg, 1837, B. semicastaneus Mannerheim, 1852, Hylesinus villosus Fabricius, 1792 and B. monographus Fabricius, 1792. The original description of the genus was cited once by Ferrari (1867 : 24) and Motschulsky (1863, 1866) assigned four species to Anodius ; except for these citations the genus is unknown in the literature. The original description of the genus and the type material of these subsequently assigned species were unknown to taxonomic specialists on the group until 1968 (Wood, 1969: 117). Because of the antiquity of the name and its apparent involvement in synonymy a successful search was made for the original des- cription of Anodius. A type-species has not been designated for Anodius. 2. The first three of the four original species assigned to Anodius are currently treated in the genus Dryocoetes Eichhoff, 1864; the fourth species is in Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864. Since autographus, the first species assigned to Anodius by Motschulsky, is the type-species of the genus Dryocoetes and monographus, the fourth original species assigned to it, is the type-species of Xyleborus, a nomenclatural change is unavoidable if the Law of Priority is applied. 3. In order to avoid a nomenclatural conflict with Xy/eborus, I designate Bostrichus autographus Ratzeburg as the type-species of Anodius Motschulsky. Through this action Anodius becomes a senior objective synonym of Dryocoetes Eichhoff. 4. Dryocoetes is essentially world-wide in distribution, it contains more than 100 nominal species, and its taxonomic status has not been questioned since it was originally named. The literature contains several thousand references to Dryocoetes and none to Anodius since 1866. The family-group name DRYOCOETINI, originally established as DRYOCOETOIDEAE Lindemann, 1876, was based on Dryocoetes; no family-group name has been based on Anodius. 5. For the above reasons the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Anodius Motschulsky, 1860, for purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Dryocoetes Eichhoff, 1864 (gender: masculine), type-species Bostrichus autographus Ratzeburg, 1837, subsequent designation by Hopkins, 1914; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Anodius Motschulsky, 1860, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology autographus Ratzeburg, 1837, as published in the binomen Bostrichus autographus (type-species of Dryvocoetes Eichhoff, 1864). REFERENCES Ercuuorr, W. J. 1864. Ueber die Mundtheile und die Fiihlerbildung der europiis- chen Xylophagi sens. strict. Berl. Ent. Z. 8 : 17-46 Hopkins, A. D. 1914. List of generic names and their type-species in the Coleop- terous superfamily Scolytoidea. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 48 : 115-136 MOoTSCHULSKY, V. VON. 1860. Coléoptéres de la Sibérie orientale et en particulier des rives de Amour. Jn: Schrenck, Reisen und Forschungen im Amur- Lande 2 : 77-257 — 1863. Essai d’un catalogue des insectes de l’ile Ceylan. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscou 36 : 421-432 —— 1866. Essai d’un catalogue des insectes de l’ile Ceylan. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscou 39 : 393-446 Woop, S. L. 1969. New synonymy and records of Platypodidae and Scolytidae (Coleoptera). Gt. Basin Nat. 29 : 113-128 CITATIONS OF DRYOCOETES EICHHOFF, 1864 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 79(b) BaLacHowsky, A. 1949. Coléoptéres Scolytides. Faune France 50 : 177 Bricut, D. E., Jr. 1963. Bark beetles of the genus Dryocoetes (Coleoptera: Scoly- tidae) in North America. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 56 : 103 Browne, F. G. 1961. The biology of Malayan Scolytidae and Platypodidae. Malay. Forest Ins. No. 22 : 83 Eccers, H. 1929. Zur Synonymie der Borkenkafer (Ipidae, Col.). Wien. ent. Ztg. 46 : 43 Ferrari, J. A. 1867. Die Forst- und Baumzuchtschiédlichen Borkenkafer. Wien, Gerold. 96 p. Murayama, J. J. 1957. Studies in the scolytid-fauna of the northern half of the Far East. IIL Dryocoetini. Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture, Yamaguti University 8 : 592 Nosucui, A. 1969. A comparative morphological study of the proventriculus in the adult of the superfamily Scolytoidea (Coleoptera). Bulletin of the Govern- ment Forest Experiment Station, Tokyo 224 : 61 NunserG, M. 1954. Korniki-Scolytidae, Wyrynniki-Platypodidae. Klucze Oznacz. Owad. Pol. 19 : 55 ScHEDL, K. E. 1962. Scolytidae und Platypodidae Afrikas. Revta Ent. Mogamb. 4: 655 SPESSIVISEFF, P. 1925. Fam. Barkborrar: 28 Coleoptera. Svensk Insektfauna 9(3) : 174 Woop, S. L. 1961. A key to the North American genera of Scolytidae. Coleopts. Bull. 15 : 46 NotE:—This application is supported by Prof. Dr. Karl E. Sched! (Lienz, Austria); Prof. Dr. Ant. Pfeffer (Prague, Czechoslovakia); J. J. Menier (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France). 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NAME LIPARTHRUM WOLLASTON, 1864 (INSECTA: COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2071 By Stephen L. Wood (Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah) Wollaston (1854 : 294) named and described the genus Leiparthrum and designated L. bituberculatum Wollaston as the type-species. Wollaston (1857 : 97; 1861 : 39) subsequently cited this name on two occasions, then later he (Wollaston, 1864 : 265) used the emendation Liparthrum for this genus, without a description or explanation, but he included a citation of the 1854 description of Leiparthrum. The literature published since 1864 contains about 150 references to this genus and only one reference (Bright, 1968) to Leiparthrum. 2. This genus contains about 25 species that are scattered throughout the tropical and subtropical areas of the world and in the temperature region in Europe. Apparently all species are of minor economic importance. Three subjective synonyms of this genus include: Erineosinus Blackman, 1920, Phloeochilus Sched, 1953, and, possibly, Phloeotrypetus Wood, 1960. Family- group names have not been based on either generic name. 3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Leiparthrum Wollaston, 1854, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to rule that the generic name Liparthrum Wollaston, 1864, is an un- justified emendation of Leiparthrum Wollaston, 1854; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Liparthrum Wollaston, 1864, (gender: neuter), type-species by original designation, Leiparthrum bituberculatum Wollaston, 1854; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Leiparthrum Wollaston, 1854, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above; (5) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology bituberculatum Wollaston, 1854, as published in the binomen Leiparthrum bituber- culatum (type-species of Liparthrum Wollaston). REFERENCES Bricut, D. E., Jr. 1968. Review of the genus Leiparthrum in North America, with a description of one new species (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Ent. 100 : 636-639 WOLLASTON, T. VY. 1854. Insecta Maderensia, being an account of the insects of the islands of the Madeiran group, Van Voorst; London. 634 p. — 1857. Catalogue of the coleopterous insects of Madeira in the collection of the British Museum. London. 234 p. —— 1861. On the Euphorbia-infesting Coleoptera of the Canary Islands. Trans. ent. Soc. London, (ser. 3), 1(2) : 1-55 —— 1864. Catalogue of the coleopterous insects of the Canaries in the collection of the British Museum. London. 648 p. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. oo Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 CITATIONS OF LIPARTHRUM WOLLASTON, 1864 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 79(b) BALAcHOwsky, A. 1949. Coléoptéres Scolytides. Faune France 50 : 152 Eccers, H. 1927. Seltene und neue palaearktische Borkenkifer VI. Ent. Bl. Biol. Syst. Kafer 23 : 121 —— 1928. Ein neues Liparthrum (Col., Ipid.) von den Canarischen Inseln. Tijd- schr. Ent. 71 : 183 LinpBerG, H. 1953. Zweiter Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Kaferfauna der Kanarischen Inseln. Societas Scientiarum Fennica Commentationes Biologicae 13 : 18 PrerFerR, A. 1941. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Gattung Liparthrum (Col., Ipidae). Z. angew. Ent. 28 : 388 — 1955. Scolytoidea: Coleoptera. Fauna CSR 6: 148 ScHEepDL, K. E. 1959. Bestimmungstabellen Palaearktischer Borkenkafer IX. Societas Scientiarum Fennica Commentationes Biologicae 22 : 36 — 1963. Zur Synonymie der Borkenkafer IX. Ent. Abh. Mus. Tierk. Dresden 28 : 263 Woop, S.L. 1957. Distributional notes on and synonymies of some North Ameri- can Scolytidae (Coleoptera). Can. Ent. 89 : 399 — 1959. New records and species of Arizona bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scoly- tidae). Gt. Basin Nat. 19 : 57 Note:—This application is supported by Prof. Dr. Karl E. Sched! (Lienz, Austria); Prof. Dr. Ant. Pfeffer (Prague, Czechoslovakia); J. J. Menier (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France). 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NAME PHLOEOSINUS CHAPUIS, 1869 (INSECTA: COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2072 By Stephen L. Wood (Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah) The genus Olonthogaster Motschulsky (1866 : 401) was named and des- cribed for O. nitidicollis Motschulsky, 1866, and O. nudifrons Motschulsky, 1866. This genus and the two species, both from Ceylon, have been listed in an incerta sedis category by all authors from 1866 to 1969, because the types were inaccessible to specialists (Wood, 1969). Hopkins (1914 : 126) designated nitidicollis as the type-species of this genus. I examined the holotypes of both species and found them to be congeneric with Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869. 2. The genus Phloeosinus is world-wide in distribution and includes approximately 140 nominal species, several of which are of moderate economic importance. Several thousand references to this genus appear in the literature. The name Olonthogaster has, in effect, been a forgotten name in the literature since its original publication. As indicated above, fewer than a dozen references exist and all since 1866 refer to it as an unknown genus. 3. The family-group name PHLOEOSININI employed by some authors, originally established as Phloeosinides Niisslin, 1912, was based on the name Phloeosinus. Olonthogaster has not been used as the type-genus of any family- group name. Phloeosinus has the following subjective junior synonyms: Phloeosinites Hagedorn, 1906, and Phloeosinopsis Schedl, 1936. 4. In the interest of preserving nomenclatural stability, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Olonthogaster Motschulsky, 1866, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy. (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869, (gender: masculine), type-species Hylesinus thujae Perris, 1855, subsequent designation by Hopkins, 1914; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Olonthogaster Motschulsky, 1866, sup- pressed under the plenary powers in (1) above; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology thujae Perris, 1855, as published in the binomen Hylesinus thujae (type-species of Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869). REFERENCES CuHAPuIs, F. 1869. Synopsis des Scolytides. Desoer: Paris. 61 p. Hopkins, A. D. 1914. List of generic names and their type-species in the Coleop- terous superfamily Scolytoidea. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 48 : 115-136 MorTScCHULSKY, V. VON. 1866. Essai d’un catalogue des insectes de l’ile Ceylan. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. Moscou 39 : 393-446 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 CITATIONS OF PHLOEOSINUS CHAPUIS, 1869 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 79(b) BALAcHowsky, A. 1949. Coléoptéres Scolytides. Faune France 50 : 117 BLACKMAN, M. W. 1942. Revision of the genus Phloeosinus Chapuis in North America (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 92 : 397 —— 1943. New species of American scolytoid beetles, mostly neotropical. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 94 : 397 Browne, F. G. 1961. The biology of Malayan Scolytidae and Platypodidae. Malay. Forest Ins. No. 22 : 61 Bruck, C. R. 1931. Two new species of bark beetles of the genus Phloeosinus Chapuis. Pan-Pacif. Ent. 7 : 126 Eaccers, H. 1929. Seltene und neue palaearktische Borkenkafer VI. Ent. Bl. Biol. Syst. kdfer 23 : 120 — 1931. Zur Synonymie der Borkenkafer (Ipidae, Col.) Il. Wien. ent. Ztg. 47 : 186 ScHEDL, K. E. 1959. A check list of the Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera) of Ceylon, with descriptions of new species and biological notes. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 111 : 472 —— 1962. Scolytidae und Platypodidae Afrikas. Revta Ent. Mogamb. 3 : 130 Woop, a L. 1960. Coleoptera: Platypodidae and Scolytidae. Insects Micronesia 18(1) : 15 Norte:—This application is supported by Prof. Dr. Karl E. Sched! (Lienz, Austria); Prof. Dr. Ant. Pfeffer (Prague, Czechoslovakia); J. J. Menier (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France). 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CLINOCARDIUM CALIFORNIENSE (DESHAYES, 1839) (MOLLUSCA: CARDIIDAE): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2073 By Alexander J. Kafanov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) Clinocardium californiense (Deshayes, 1839, Rev. Zool. Soc. Cuviérienne, vol. 2, p. 360; vol. 4, 1841, pl. 47) is a name which has firmly entered world literature on Bivalvia for designating a common species of shallow water CARDIIDAE. The geographic range for this species is from the mainland of Asia and the islands of Akkeshi and Hokkaido, Japan, northeast to Icy Cape and Sitka, Alaska (A. M. Keen, 1937, An Abridged Check List and Bibliography of West North America Marine Mollusca, p. 19; A. M. Keen, 1954, Bull. Amer. Paleont., vol. 35, no. 153, p. 20). However we have established as a result of a revision of cardiids from the cold and temperate waters of the Northern Hemisphere that Cardium boreale Broderip and Sowerby, 1829 non Reeve, 1845, described ten years earlier is conspecific with this species and must be recognized as its senior synonym. Reeve’s proposal was of a different species; it was not a mis-identification of the Broderip and Sowerby species. 2. Cardium boreale Broderip and Sowerby, 1829, Zool. J., vol. 4, p. 368, non Reeve, 1845, Conch. Icon., 2, Cardium, pl. 22, fig. 131, was described from the area of Arctic Coasts of Alaska (Icy Cape) but it has not been figured and the description is insufficient for certain identification of the shell. The type material of Cardium boreale is most probably lost. To judge by the name of the paper which contains the original description of this species (“Observations on new or interesting Mollusca contained, for the most part, in the Museum of the Zoological Society”) we can suppose that the type specimens of Cardium boreale could be deposited in the collection of the Zoological Society which had all been dispersed by 1851. In a personal communication of April 6, 1973 with reference to the repository of this species, Dr. P. J. C. Russell (The Marine Laboratory, Hayling Island, Hants, U.K.) however, wrote to me and said the following: “‘According to P. Chalmers Mitchell (1929) in Centenary History of the Zoological Society of London (Published by The Zoological Society of London), the museum collection was dispersed to the British Museum and ‘to other Institutions’—none of which is named. I have been to the British Museum (Natural History) and none of the type material listed by Broderip and Sowerby (1829) is at present in their collection... According to one of the most longstanding workers at the Department of Mollusca (B.M.), she has never seen any Zoological Society labels from which observation she infers that no molluscan material was presented to the British Museum.” 3. Only Clinocardium ciliatum (Fabricius, 1780) and Cl. californiense (Deshayes, 1839) are known from the area of Icy Cape out of the recent and late-Quarternary molluscs of the family CARDIIDAE which can be comparable with Cardium boreale Broderip and Sowerby, 1829. They are very different one from another in the character of the external shell sculpture: Clinocardium Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 ciliatum has relatively sparse radial ribs, triangular in cross-section, which bear a thin periostracal fringe while Clinocardium californiense has numerous radial ribs, rounded in cross-section, without a periostracal fringe. The character of the external sculpture of clinocardiums is a stable morphological indication and can serve even for demarcation of the taxons of the generic rank (Makiyama, 1934, Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto Imper. Univ. (ser. B) 10 (2) pp. 127-167; A. I. Kafanoy, 1974). It follows from the original description that Cardium boreale has “numerous close-set rounded ribs’, which allows us to identify it with Clinocardium californiense (Deshayes, 1839) with assurance. 4. The name Cardium boreale Broderip and Sowerby, 1829 has not been used as a senior synonym in the primary zoological literature for more than fifty years and according to the Article 23 (a—b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, I request its suppression. The list of references required for californiense in accordance with Article 79(b) is given at the end of the paper. 5. 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 boreale Broderip et Sowerby, 1829 non Reeve, 1845, as published in the binomen Cardium boreale; (2) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: californiense Deshayes, 1839, as published in the binomen Cardium californiense ; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name boreale Broderip and Sowerby, 1829, as suppressed under (1) above. Prof. A. Myra Keen (Stanford University, U.S.A.) and Prof. Ya. I. Starobo- gatov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R.), both of whom I consulted, support this proposal. REFERENCES The following list of references complies with Article 79(b), for californiense Deshayes, 1839: Kuropa, T., & Kosa, K. 1933. Bull. biogeogr. Soc. Japan 4(2) : 163 (Cardium (Cerastoderma)) c Razin, A. I. 1934. Izv. tikhookean. nauchno. issled. Inst. ryb. Khoz. Okeanogr. 8 : 79 (Cardium (Cerastoderma)) Larrocaur, A. 1953. Bull. natn. Mus. Can. (Biol. Ser. No. 44) 129 : 63 (Clino- cardium) Keen, A. M. 1954. Bull. Am. Paleont. 35 (No. 153) : 20 (Clinocardium) Hane, T. 1955. Publs Akkeshi mar. biol. Stn No. 4: 11, pl. 1, fig. 5 (Clinocardium) Kira, T. 1955. Coloured Illustrations of the Shells of Japan Hoikusha, Osaka, p. 111 (Clinocardium) YAMAMOTO, G., & HABE, T. 1959. Bull. biol. Stn Asamushi 9(3) : 93, pl. 7, fig. 21 (Clinocardium) Kira, T. 1962. Shells of the Western Pacific in colour Hoikusha Publishing Co. Ltd., Osaka: 156, pl. 56, fig. 4 (Clinocardium) Hase, T., & Ivo, K. 1965. Shells of the World in colour. Volume I: The Northern Pacific, Hoikusha, Osaka: 132, pl. 44, fig. 2 (Clinocardium) Go.ikov, A. N., & SCARLATO, O. A. 1967. Trudy Zool. Inst. Leningr. 42 : 106, pl. 7, fig. 5 (Clinocardium) 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PLYCTOLOPHUS DUCROPS BONAPARTE, 1850 (AVES): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AND VALIDATION OF CACATUA DUCORPSII PUCHERAN, 1853. Z.N.(S.) 2074 By E. Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) and J. M. Forshaw (CSIRO, Division of Wildlife Research, Canberra, Australia) Ducorps’ Cockatoo is a common parrot of the Solomon Islands, well- known in the avicultural literature. Currently it is placed in the genus Cacatua. The specific name has appeared as DuCrops (once), ducorpsii (the usual spelling, especially during the 19th century), ducorpsi (a fairly common variant or emendation), ducropsii (a very rare error or emendation), ducrops (very rarely; the modern orthography of DuCrops), and ducorps (a modern emendation). Authorship of ducorpsii (and its variants) has been variously attributed to Hombron and Jacquinot, to Jacquinot and Pucheran, and correctly to Pucheran alone; of DuCrops (and its emendations) once to Hombron and Jacquinot, but correctly to Bonaparte. 2. To effect stability, universality and to end the existing confusion, a binding decision is sought from the International Commission, by exercise of the plenary powers. 3. The specific name was based on the surname of L.-J. Ducorps, a naval officer on the French expedition to Oceania and towards the South Pole (1837— 1840), the results of which were published in a series of volumes commonly called ‘““Voyage au Péle Sud”. This cockatoo was first brought to scientific attention and pictured in the Atlas of the collections on this expedition, (1845, Voy. Péle Sud, Atlas, Ois., pl. 26, fig. 1), where the colour plate gives only the French name “‘Cacatoés de Ducorps”; Hombron and Jacquinot are credited with preparing this Atlas. Some eight years later (1853) appeared the text volume containing descriptions and scientific names of the mammals and birds, subtitled under the authorship of Jacquinot and Pucheran; there the cockatoo was described and named “Cacatua ducorpsii, Homb. et Jacq. Kakatoés de Ducorps” (Voy. Péle Sud, Zool. 3, p. 108). On p. 109 Pucheran wrote (translation from the French): “The species has been dedicated to M. Ducorps, naval administration officer on board the corvette /’Astrolabe. In procuring birds for us from these distant regions, M. Jacquinot writes me, M. Ducorps rendered real services to the expedition and to science”. Earlier in the volume (p. 14) it is made clear that the zoologist Pucheran was solely responsible for the scientific names and descriptions (Jacquinot was a sea captain in command of one of the ships of the expedition), but Pucheran explains that he deems it appropriate to credit the scientific names to Hombron and Jacquinot because the specific names are merely translation into Latin of the French names they had previously adopted. Although during the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th century the name ducorpsii (occasionally emended to ducorpsi) was generally attributed to Jacquinot and Pucheran (very Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241 rarely to Hombron and Jacquinot), since the adoption of the Régles Inter- nationales and the International Code zoologists have almost universally credited ducorpsii solely to Pucheran (see discussion Zimmer, Field Mus. Nat. Hist., (Zool. Ser.) 16, p. 186, 1926). 4. The problem arises from the circumstance that during the long interval between the appearance of the Atlas plate and the publication of Pucheran’s description and scientific name, Bonaparte in 1850 had published a slightly different but misspelled specific name (Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. 30, p. 138), which, under current nomenclatural rules has priority and apparent availability. In an article reviewing the parrots Bonaparte placed the true cockatoos in the genus Plyctolophus and simply mentioned among the included species: “7. P. DuCrops, Homb. et. Jacq., figuré dans le Voyage au Pole Sud; ayant une petite huppe blanche’. Bonaparte credited authorship of the scientific name to Hombron and Jacquinot, for he intended merely to provide a name equivalent to the French name “Cacatoés de Ducorps’, appearing on the plate where the cited figure occurs. Under the Code (as also under the Régles) Bonaparte’s 1850 name seems available despite the descriptive inadequacy and lack of intention to describe a new species. The mention of an unspecified figure in Voyage au Pole Sud probably does not constitute an “indication” in the sense of Arts., 16(a)(i), 12, but the name presumably is made available by the brief mention of one characteristic of the cockatoo. 5. The spelling ““DuCrops”’ in Bonaparte’s paper is an obvious transposition of the ‘“‘o” and the “‘r’” in the name ““DuCorps” of the plate cited. There is no word ‘‘crops”, nor name “Ducrops”’, in French or Latin. ‘“Ducorps” is a not unusual French surname based on the common French word “corps” (meaning body). This is a clear case of either a /apsus calami or a printer’s error, which, formerly, most zoologists considered themselves entitled to emend. We recognize that an obstacle to such ‘“‘automatic’’ emendation is raised by the very recent amendment of Code Article 32(a)(ii) at the Monaco Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29, p. 186, 29 Dec. 1972), under which the “clear evidence of error” must appear “‘in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information”. It is arguable that a publication essential to the availability of a name as an “indication” is incorporated by reference in the original publication, and thus is not an “external source’. On that theory ‘““DuCrops” might be emended. It reduces possible controversy to reject Bonaparte’s name altogether and accept the long used and next available ducorpsii of Pucheran. 6. The literature universally recognizes that this parrot was named after Ducorps. The usual name in the avicultural publications is Ducorps’ Cockatoo (English), Kakatoés de Ducorps (French), Kakatu Ducorps (German). Bona- parte himself in 1857 used the correct sequence of letters by erecting the genus Ducorpsius, with this species indicated as type by tautonymy, sub nom Ducorpsius typus (Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 44, p. 537). 7. Although Bonaparte’s 1850 paper was well-known and often cited, we have found no subsequent author during the 19th century who credited him 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature with authorship, much less adopted the misspelling of his paper.* Almost all writers used ducorpsii (sometimes varied to ducorpsi), crediting authorship to Jacquinot and Pucheran (occasionally to Hombron and Jacquinot). After the adoption of the Régles Internationales ducorpsii continued in use, but it was recognized that Pucheran should be credited with sole authorship (Zimmer, 1926, Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Zool. 16, p. 188; Mathews, 1927, Syst. Av. Austral. pt. 1, p. 316; Mayr, 1931, Amer. Mus. Novit. no. 504, p. 108; 1944, Ibis (13) 3, p. 550). 8. In 1937 Peters’ Check-list of Birds of the World, 3, p. 176, revived Bonaparte’s name without emendation, listing ‘““Kakatoe ducrops (Bonaparte)”’. Most subsequent authors (not all) have followed Peters in crediting Bonaparte, but all have emended the name, in one way or another, to agree with the surname Ducorps. Mayr’s handbook, Birds of the Southwest Pacific, p. 232, 1945, credited Bonaparte as author but used Cacatua ducorpsi. This involved two emendations: the transposition of letters, and the addition of a genitive ending (the latter emendation, while permissible under the Régles Internation- ales, ceased to be “justified” under the International Code, as amended in 1963 at Washington, [deleting Art. 31 and amending Art. 32)]). Prior to the adoption of the Code, the emended spelling used by Mayr, with credit to Bonaparte, ducorpsi, was followed by Virtue, 1947, Emu 46, p. 328; Sibley, 1951, Condor 53, p. 87; and Cain and Galbraith, 1956, Ibis 98, p. 128. But subsequently Galbraith and Galbraith, 1962, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Zool. 9(1), p. 33, reverted to Pucheran’s ducorpsii. 9. Aside from Peters (1937), we have found no author who has favoured maintaining the original misspelling of Bonaparte’s 1850 paper. An apparent exception might seem to be the avicultural booklet by Prestwich (1958), “J name this parrot. . .””, identifying persons memorialized in the scientific names of parrots as listed in Peters’ Check-list of Birds of the World; the booklet lists the species as ““Kakatoe ducrops” (consistently with Peters’ work), but Prestwich made clear that the bird was named after Ducorps. Bates and Busenbork (1959), Parrots and related Birds, while essentially adopting Peters’ nomenclature, emended the name to Kakatoe ducorps. The same emendation was made in the most recent and comprehensive monograph, Forshaw’s Parrots of the World, 1973, 584 pp. (Lansdowne Press, Australia and Doubleday Co., New York), where the species is listed (p. 134) as Cacatua ducorps (Bona- parte), with the explanation in the preface (p. 14): “Ducorps’ Cockatoo was certainly named after Ducorps and Bonaparte’s ducrops is probably either a lapsus calami or a printer’s error, so I have amended it to ducorps”’. 10. In view of the several variant spellings of the specific name of Ducorps’ Cockatoo and the various attributed authorships, a decision by the Inter- national Commission is needed to ensure stability and universality and to eliminate the confusing transposition ‘“‘ducrops”. The simplest way of handling the situation is to suppress Bonaparte’s (1850) misspelling duCrops, which was * Gray’s List of Specimens of Birds in the British Museum, pt. 3, p. 94, 1859, used the mis- spelling Cacatua ducropsii, credited to Homb. and Jacq. He corrected the spelling to ducorpsii in Hand-list Gen. Sp. Birds, 2, p. 170, 1870. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 published without the intent of providing a new name or of describing a new species. This would leave as the earliest available name Pucheran’s (1853) Cacatua ducorpsii, the commonest spelling, which was accompanied by the first description of the species, and until Peters’ work, was universally regarded as the original description. This avoids any need for emendation. Further, the variant and less common emended spelling ducorpsi (whatever the author- ship) is expressly a homonym under Article 58(10) of the Code, so it causes no problem. We request the International Commission by exercise of the plenary powers: (1) to suppress the specific name ducrops, originally published in the com- bination Plyctolophus DuCrops Bonaparte, C. r. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Sci. Paris 30, p. 138, 1850, and to place the names ducrops and DuCrops on the Official Index of Specific Names Rejected in Zoology. (2) to place the specific name ducorpsii, originally published in the com- bination Cacatua ducorpsii by Pucheran in Jacquinot and Pucheran, Voyage au Péle Sud, Zool. 3, p. 108, 1853, on the Official List of Specific Names accepted in Zoology. 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MEGASTERNUM MULSANT, 1844, AND CRYPTOPLEURUM MULSANT, 1844 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA: HYDROPHILIDAE): TWO CASES OF MISIDENTIFIED TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 2075 By A. Smetana (Biosystematics Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada) Application is hereby made for official designation of type-species of the subject genera to preserve the current long-standing usage. Both cases of misidentified type-species are being referred to the Commission in accordance with Article 70 (a) of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. A. Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 2. Mulsant (1844 : 187), when erecting the genus Megasternum included only one species, namely bolitophagum Erichson, 1837, mentioning also the names Dermestes boletophagus Marsh., 1802 and Cercyon boletophagum ou bolitophagum Steph., 1829. The type-species, by monotypy is therefore Dermestes boletophagus Marsham, 1802. Subsequent examination of Marsham’s type of Dermestes boletophagus (see Balfour-Browne, 1939 : 5) proved that this species had been misinterpreted by all subsequent authors, and that it is actually a specimen of Cercyon triste (Iliger, 1801), a genus which is now referred to a different tribe of the subfamily SPHAERIDIINAE. Mulsant erected Megasternum for what was known at that time as Cercyon boletophagum following the misidentification by Erichson (1837 : 221) of Marsham’s species. This is obvious from the morphological features used by Mulsant to characterize the genus, and from his reference to Erichson’s paper as well. 3. The concept of Megasternum as originally proposed by Mulsant has been continuously used without exception by all subsequent authors since the name was erected. Megasternum later became the type-genus of the tribe MEGASTERNINI. For these reasons I believe that the name Megasternum should be conserved in its current sense for the stability and uniformity of the nomen- clature of the group. The first available name for boletophagum auct., nec Marsham, 1802 is Dermestes obscurus Marsham, 1802 and it is proposed here as the type-species of Megasternum. B. Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 4. Mulsant (1844 : 188), when erecting the genus Crypfopleurum, included only one species, namely Sphaeridium atomarium Fabricius, 1775. This species therefore automatically becomes the type-species of Cryptopleurum by monotypy. In fact, Fabricius (1775 : 67) did not describe atomarium as a new species. This is obvious from his reference to “Silpha atomaria, nigra, subovata, elytris immarginatis, pedibus pallidis. Linn. Syst. Nat. II. 574.35”. Silpha atomaria Linné, 1767 actually is Stilbus atomarius of the family PHALACRIDAE (Hetschko, 1930 : 35). Fabricius (1775 : 67) gave the following data for his Sphaeridium atomarium: “Habitat in stercore Angliae D. Banks”. Waterhouse (results published by Bedel, 1881 : LXXXI) subsequently examined the Fabricius Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 specimen under the name afomarium in the Banks collection and showed that it is actually a specimen of Cercyon impressum (Sturm, 1807). Cercyon is now placed in a different tribe of the subfamily Sphaeridiinae. Mulsant actually erected Cryptopleurum neither for Stilbus atomarius (Linné) nor for Cercyon impressum (Sturm), but for Cercyon atomarium sensu Olivier 1790 (Sphaeridium), Stephens, 1829, and Erichson, 1837 (nec sensu Fabricius, 1775), works to which he refers in his description. This is obvious from the morphological features used by Mulsant to characterize the genus Cryptopleurum. 5. The concept of Cryptopleurum as originally proposed by Mulsant has been continuously used without exception by all subsequent authors since the name was erected. For this reason I believe that the name Cryptopleurum should be conserved in its current sense for the stability and uniformity of the nomenclature of the group. The first available name for atomarium sensu Olivier et al. nec sensu Fabricius, 1775; nec Linné, 1767, is Sphaeridium minutum Fabricius, 1775 and it is proposed here as the type-species of Cryptopleurum. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby asked to take the following actions: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Megasternum Mulsant, 1884, and having done so, to designate Dermestes obscurus Marsham, 1802, as type-species; (b) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844, and having done so, to designate Sphaeridium minutum Fabricius 1775, as type-species; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 (gender : neuter), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Dermestes obscurus Marsham, 1802; (b) Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 (gender : neuter), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Sphaeridium minutum Fabricius, 1775; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) obscurus Marsham 1802, as published in the binomen Dermestes obscurus (type-species of Megasternum Mulsant, 1844); (b) minutum Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Sphaeridium minutum (type-species of Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844). REFERENCES BALFOUR-BROWNE, J. 1939. Contribution to the study of the Palpicornia. IL. Entomologist’s mon. Mag. 75 : 1-8. Bepet, L. 1881. Lasynonymie de six espéces de Sphacridium décrites par Fabricius en 1775 (Syst. Entom., p. 66), et dont les types sont désignés par lui comme appartenant a la collection Banks. Annis Soc. ent. Fr. (Sér. 6) 1 (Bull. Séanc. Soc. ent. Fr.): LXXXI. ERICHSON, W. F. 1837-1839. Die Kafer der Mark Brandenburg I. Berlin, 740 pp. 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Fasricius, J. C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae.... Fiensburgi et Lipsiae, 30 + 832 pp. HetscHko, A. 1930. Phalacridae: In: Junk-Schenkling: Coleopterorum Catalogus XV, pars 108. Berlin, 48 pp. ILvicer, J.C.W. 1801. Magazin fur Insectenkunde. Vol. 1, Heft 1-2. Braunschweig 8 + 260 pp. LINNE, C. 1767. Systema Naturae...Ed.12, part 2. Holmiae, p. 533-1327. MaArsHAM, T. 1802. Entomologia Britannica. I. Coleoptera. London, 31 + 548 pp. MutsantT, E. 1844. Histoire naturelle des Coléoptéres de France. Palpicornes. Paris, 7 + 196 pp., 1 pl. Ouivier, A. G. 1790. Entomologie, ou Histoire Naturelle des Insectes,... Vol. 2. Paris, 485 pp. ,63 pl. STEPHENS, J. F. 1829. Illustrations of British Entomology ...Mandibulata, Vol. 2. London, 200 pp., pl. 10-15 Sturm, J. 1807. Deutschlands Fauna...V. Abtheilung. Die Insecten. Vol. 2. Niirnberg, 4 + 279 pp., pl. 21-52. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 PSEUDOBOA NIGRA (DUMERIL, BIBRON AND DUMERIL 1854) (REPTILIA: SERPENTES): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2077 By Andrew F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London) Bailey (1962 : 167), in a paper dealing with nomenclatural problems of several South American snakes, proposed that the trivial name Scytale neuwiedii var. nigrum Duméril, Bibron & Dumeéril (1854 : 1002) be revived for the species now known as Pseudoboa nigra (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril). Bailey’s proposal was accepted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature and the above-mentioned specific name placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Opinion 698, 1964 : 101). 2. Since 1964 the name Pseudoboa nigra (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril) has appeared three times in primary zoological literature (Bailey, 1967 : 159; Pessoa, 1967 : 53; Peters & Orejas Miranda, 1970 : 254) and is the only name currently in use for this species. 3. Scytale neuwiedii var. nigrum is a junior primary homonym of Scytale niger Daudin (1803 : 342) a name long considered a synonym of the North American Eastern Hognose snake, Heterodon platirhinos Latreille (in Sonnini & Latreille 1801 : 32). 4. The name Scytale (or Scytalus) niger Daudin has only twice been used for the black variety of the Eastern Hognose snake (Harlan, 1827 : 367 and 1835 : 130) but the specific name continued to be used, either in the com- bination Heterodon niger (Troost, 1836 : 186; Holbrook, 1842 : 63; Baird & Girard, 1853 : 55; Duméril, Bibron & Dumeéril, 1854 : 769; Giinther, 1858 : 83) or in the combination Heterodon platirhinos (or platyrhinus) var. niger (Jan. 1863 : 44; S. Garman, 1883 : 76; H. Garman, 1892 : 303) until near the end of the nineteenth century when it was finally relegated to the synonymy of Heterodon platirhinos (Cope, 1892 : 643; Hay, 1893 : 102; Boulenger, 1894 : 154). Edgren (1957) in a study of melanism in the Eastern Hognose snake found evidence of geographical variation but concluded that subspecies were not recognisable. If at some future date it is decided that a subspecies based on the black variety deserves taxonomic recognition it is unlikely that Daudin’s name would be needed as it is antedated by Coluber cacodaemon Shaw (1802 : 377). Both names are based on the black variety and the type locality of both has been restricted to “vicinity of Charleston’’ (Schmidt, 1953 : 179). 5. If the Law of Homonymy were applied the name Pseudoboa nigra (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril) would be replaced by its oldest synonym, Pseudo- boa albimaculata Mello (1926 : 129), a name unused as a senior synonym since its original description. As the former name has already been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology it is felt that some confusion would arise if it were now rejected. 6. In the interests of nomenclatural stability the Commission is therefore requested : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name niger Daudin, Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1803, as used in the combination Scytale niger, for the purposes of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BaiLey, J. R. 1962. Lystrophis Cope, 1885 (Reptilia); proposed validation under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nom. 19 : 164-169 — 1967. The synthetic approach to colubrid classification. Herpetologica 23 : 155-161 Bairp, S. F. & GirarD, C. 1853. Catalogue of North American reptiles in the museumof the Smithsonian Institution Part 1 Serpentes. Washington. xvi + 172 pp BouLencer, G. A. 1894. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History). London. Vol. 2, xi + 381 pp Cope, E. D. 1892. A critical review of the characters and variations of the snakes of North America. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 14 : 589-694 Daupin, F. M. 1803. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des reptiles. Paris. Vol. 5, 365 pp DumeriL, A. M. C., Bipron, G. & Dumeérit, A. 1854. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle compléte des reptiles. Paris. Vol. 7, I-XVI, 1-780, I-XII, 781-1536 pp EpGreNn, R.A. 1957. Melanismin Hog-nosed Snakes. Herpetologica13 : 131-135. GarMAN, H. 1892. A Synopsis of the Reptiles and Amphibians of Illinois. Bull. Til. St. Lab. nat. Hist. 3 : 215-385 GarRMAN, S. 1883. The reptiles and batrachians of North America. Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Hary. 8 (3) : xxxi + 184 pp GUntuHer, A. 1958. Catalogue of the colubrine snakes in the collection of the British Museum. London, xvi + 264 pp Haran, R. 1827. Genera of North American Reptilia, and a Synopsis of the species. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 317-372 Haran, R. 1835. Medical and Physical Researches or Original Memoirs in Medicine, Surgery, Physiology, Geology, Zoology and Comparative Anatomy. Philadelphia. xxxix -+ 653 pp Hay,O.P. 1893. The Batrachians and Reptiles of the State of Indiana. Indianapolis. 204 pp Hoprook, J. E. 1842. North American Herpetology or a description of the Reptiles inhabiting the United States. Philadelphia. Vol. 4, vi + 138 pp JAN, G. 1863. Elenco sistematico degli ophidi descritti e disegnati per I’ Iconographia Generale. Milan. 143 pp MELLO, O. de. 1926. Contribugao para conhecimento dos ophidios brasileiros. Mems Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 29 : 127-137 OPINION 698. 1964. Lystrophis Cope, 1885 (Reptilia): validation under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nom. 21 : 101-103 Pessoa, S. B. 1967. Notas sobre hemogregarinas de serpentes Brasileiras. 2: hemogregarinas de algunas espécies de serpentes das familias Colubridae e Boidae. Revta bras. Biol. 27 : 49-56 Peters, J. A. & OresJAS MIRANDA, B. R. 1970. Catalogue of the Neotropical Squamata. Part I. Snakes. Bull U.S. natn. Mus. 297 1 : viii + 347 pp Scumipt, K. P. 1953. A Check List of North American Amphibians and Reptiles. 6th edition. Chicago. viii + 280 pp Suaw, G. 1802. General Zoology Vol. 3 Amphibia. London. 615 pp SONNINI, C. S. & LATREILLE, P. A. 1801. Histoire Naturelle des Reptiles. (Chez Détérville) Paris. Vol. 4, 410 pp Troost, G. 1836. Ona new genus of Serpents and two new species of the genus Heterodon, inhabiting Tennessee. Ann. Lyceum nat. Hist. 3 : 174-190 AE Bien > Bete: OB ruse: . a Ag 2 7 “~ dy i a