reer t Si neni Hata it Se wee ¥ Oiarnt we < ae A me meng pei et a at mea SEF? pene ae te re mer et - poet " 4 é ~ = "7 ik senile ee ee 5 ied i ORS \ ob abang ca Le “e YRo -H tei? THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL - NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 37 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 1980 (All rights reserved) woe ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TABLE OF CONTENTS ObituaryaDrnWEGhina sa sAsews. ing. DEB. velgn! zenwe bs J - Comment on Toxostroma crissale Baird, 1858 (Aves): support for pro- posed conservation (E. Eisenmann)..................-- Further comment on proposed designation of a type species for Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (Y.I. Starobogatov)........... Comment on proposed conservation of Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 (Insecta, Hemiptera)? (.M: Kerghner)iiws .aobicsvie) OSE) eae t Comment on proposed amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature regarding Ichnotaxa: (R.G. Bromley ie Ts Pirate) 278 9) Andis? sh wake veye seRiegele Opinion 1147. Status, for the purposes of the type fixations, of the remains of Chironomid Larvae (Insecta, Diptera) provided by Thienemann to Kieffer for the description of new species based on the adults reared from those larvae.................-. Opinion 1148. Stabilisation of the generic name Orchelimun Audinet- Serville, 1838 and the specific name Orchelimum vulgare Harris, 1841 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by use of the plenary powers...... Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (Mammalia: Cetacea): proposed conser- vation (D.W. Rice & K.E. Kinman).................... Prodorylaimus Andrdéssy, 1959 (Nematoda): proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers (P.A.A. Loof)..... Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 (Hemiptera Heteroptera: LYGAEIDAE): Proposal to designate type species by the use of the plenary powers (MHA Sweet) "8 25s sep 2). bas oe eee: LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] (Insecta, Lepidoptera) proposed precedence over ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861, and DASY- CHIRIDAE Packard, 1864 (D.S. Fletcher, I.W.B. Nye & D.C. PETQUSON) 4. coon oe once ov EAL SE) Re BE. eee Harminius Fairmaire, 1852 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers (E.C. Becker) ..... Acmaea limatula Carpenter, 1864 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation by use of the plenary powers (D.R. Lindberg)... . Rafinesque, 1822, “On the Turtles of the United States” (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed suppression by use of the plenary powers (H.M. Smith & D. Chiszar & R.B. Smith)................ Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 (Insecta, Coleptera): proposed con- servation (H. Silfverberg) ...............00.0000000. Chuangia Walcott, 1911, proposed validation under the plenary powers; Shantungia Walcott, 1905, proposed addition to the Official List (Trilobita) (C. Lochman Balk, the late J. Marvin Weller & C32Stubblefield)'s 2). 2B AR SB omods TA) zeigen III 62 IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Comment on Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta): proposed design- ation of a type species (Thomas L. Thompson)............ Comment on Intermediate categories in the species group (CH Silfverberg)). shee Sis GOP RE ee. Sie Opinion 1149. Blanus Wagler, 1830, and Amphisbaena cinerea Vandelli, 1797 (Reptilia, Squamata) conserved .................. Opinion 1150. Chilodus Muller & Troschel, 1844, and Caenotropus Guenther, 1864 (Pisces) placed on the Official List ......... Opinion 1151. Lingulops Hall, 1872 (Brachipoda) conserved........ Opinion 1152. Ophiura Lamarck, 1801 and Ophioderma Miller & Troschel, 1840 (Ophiuroidea): ruling on application of these namese”) .isebiemtiak sit .c). simembanien Doecwors .n0. 34 Opinion 1153. Galaxias platei Steindachner, 1898, given nomenclatural precedence over Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895 (Pisces) by the useioftheiplenary powers)! 35 2eestric. edd. coh cete. Shi L x Opinion 1154. Drupella Thiele, 1925 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): designa- tion of a type species by the use of the plenary powers....... Opinion 1155. Saperda inornata Say, 1824 (Insecta: Coleoptera): designation of a neotype by the use of the plenary powers .... Opinion 1156. Terebra variegata Gray, 1834 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) conserved by the use of the plenary powers .............. Opinion 1157. Sphex viatica [sic] Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta: Hymenop- tera): designation of lectotype s.s.. 0.5 cea 0. laa Opinion 1158. Litomosa viteae ruled under the plenary powers to be the correct original spelling of Litomosa wite Krepkogorskaya, 1933.CMematbda)sosiqewiet steigiowt) NOR). gbludva. wea Opinion 1159. Littorina (Mollusca, Gastropoda): author and date of this generic name, and type species of this nominal genus determined by use of the plenary powers................ Direction 108. Correction of Name No. 2087 in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: for Murex striata Gmelin, 1791, tread Voluta striata, Gmelin, 17791... << csc is ve ia arsine no + <0 AOA Macrocephalites (Sutner MS) Zittel, 1884 and Ammonites macroce- phalus Schlotheim, 1813 (Cephalopoda: Ammonoidea): (J.H. Callomon):(sbono ee) “ORHToM), 2241, cater. Madardi . Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865 (Mollusca, Bivalvia: PHOLADIDAE): proposed conservation (E.V. Coan & G.L. Kennedy) ........ Heterelis Costs, 1887 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed procedure for concluding the case (The Secretary) .................-. Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): revised proposals for conservation (R.E. White) ............ {gredysete .B: eoitenss IOTONCHINAE: withdrawal of proposal concerning homonymy of IOTONCHINAE in Nematoda (The Secretary) ............ Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed designation of type species (A.T. Thomas & R.M. Owens).................. Sternotherus Gray, 1825, correct spelling; and Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation (H.M. & RBS Smith’ &-D; Chiszar)\ 42-6. sehen oleae SoA 67 67 69 72 75 78 81 85 89 94 96 99 103 107 109 114 Pay 119 121 122 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Comment on Gecarcinus hirtipes Lamarck, 1818 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed suppression (L.B. Holthuis and reply by 1 Gi hd 32g Aa SD Pe a OAT te er ee Comment on MORPHIDAE, Westwood 1851 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): a further correction (C.F. Cowan). ........+++22eee eee Comment on EDWARDSIIDAE, Andres, 1881 (Coelenterata: Actinaria): proposed conservation (R.K. Brooke & J.H. Day and reply by. R-B. Williams).» 2... .)...¢ - (0% peeeele ae seals Comment on Musicicapa ruficauda Swainson, 1838 (Aves): proposed designation of neotype (H.E. Wolters and reply by C.W. Benson) Comment on Report of the Committee of Typification of Species of Protozoa: (comment by R.B. Williams).......-....+-+++:- Comment on Paranomenclature: comment on proposed amendments to Code (R.W. Huddleston and reply by the Secretary)......... Comments on criteria of publication and a petition to the Commission for a definitive ruling on the publication validity of dissertations et al. in draft third edition of the Code: (D. Haman & ReWe Huddleston) uxcceaieute wnt COT ss Vangie ema: THAIDIDAE (Gastropoda): proposed amendment of entry in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (W.O. Cernohorsky) Aan deta DLS: - «isle hee otra Voluta papilio Link, 1807 (Gastropoda): proposed conservation (W.O. Gernohorslay) Ab ., -kesee ett Stork: nad. 0GSk SHY Sheree Sree Antilope zebra Gray, 1838 (Mammalia): revised proposals for conservation:(W.F.H. Ansell)... . 2... . oleewie bens ole Woke Sphinx tipuliformis Clerck, 1759 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation (N.P. Kristensen). .........--ceeeeereees Sesia andrenaeformis Laspeyres, 1801 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation (N.P. Kristensen). ..........-2+0+2eeeee2> Chermes fusca Zetterstedt, 1828 (Insecta, Homoptera), a secondary homonym in Psylla Geoffroy, 1762: proposed validation CP. LaAWtETEE) so coos 6 oie san 00 os 9 nee ee F Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed desig- nation of type species (H. Inoue) .........-2-620+-200- Calamoecia australica Sars, 1908 and C. australis (Searle, 1911) (Crustacea, Copepoda): proposals to remove confusion (I.A.E. oS a a emer cae Ti Cys ean PAPILIONIDAE (Insecta, Lepidoptera): request for revision of the Official List\(C-F. Cowan). 0.0.20. ieweaetoee tora) nero ete» oni Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 and Nephanes Thomson, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera): request for conservation (O. Bistrom) ......... Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 (Insecta, Aphidoidea): proposed conservation (HiL:G: Strovian)sieicicncies feats he 6 cee» 2 ole Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed designation of neotype (T.R. Olson) ...........-. Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposal to designate gender and stem (I.W.B. Nye). ........------55 Athyreus Macleay, 1819 and Glyptus Brullé, 1835 (Insecta, Coleo- ptera) proposed conservation (H.F. Howden).............- 134 135 136 137 141 145 148 149 152 154 156 159 163 165 167 169 173 176 186 LOI / = NAT. Hise: oN VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 16 DEC 1980 . ¥ . 'S PURCHASED 3, . wen. Stead Comment on proposals concerning the names of four species of == Carabidae (Insecta, Coleoptera) established by Linnaeus CHeSiliverperg yn: s.r ee ee Se ee 195 The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote on proposals for substantive amendments (second instalment).... 196 Opinion 1160. Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758 and related species (Insecta, Diptera): stabilisation by the use of the plenary powers . 217 Opinion 1161. Chaitophorus C.L. Koch, 1854 (Insecta, Hemiptera) designation of a type species by use of the plenary powers .... 222 Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed conservat- LOM COST COCHITCAG oe ees. eee ee er pene renee ae ee 8s 224 Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 and Isis ochracea Linnaeus, 1758 (Coelenterata, Anthozoa): proposed conservation (K.M. Mizike& FM Bayery’< 228 WF CPE eee ESP te acts yh eee 229 Geoemyda Gray, 1834, and Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation (H.M. Smith, C.H. Ernst and ‘RUBS Smith) SPH Fees MS Le ee Awe, 0) 234 Testudo scripta Schoepff, 1792: Emys cataspila Gunther, 1885: proposed conservation (Reptilia, Testudines) (J.M. Legler, H.M. Smith 'aid- RIBS Smith) eS, BPH ORS ear se 241 Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes, POMACENTRIDAE): proposal to place on official list of generic names in Zoology, and that generic names ending in -chromis be ruled to be masculine (R.M. Bailey, C.R. Robins & PH: Greenwood)! k OH, 44 eee PP eee eee 248 Tichogonia Rossmaessler, 1835 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): closure of case (The -Secrétary )) S04. OO RO eee 256 Index to Atitiors ees FB EOL OPE OGRA, Ve ee Zo) ist of ‘Decisions in this'V olume: 2%. oR PS OPO OP ae 258 Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published in VOLUMES 1 SSO ie, 6 Oo AP DIN SD eat, See 259 index/to Key4Names See os eee ae te es Dee ee 260 COPE aah PP eee RO EBS REARS Ne PRES ee 265 Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the present volume was published .................-.-008- 265 Itistructions to Binder OP Pe eae Ne ee ere eters se 266 NOMENCLATURE ae The Official Organ of ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS ON ces 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 . peat By neuiee of the possible use by the International Commission on on eda Nomenclature of its a renary powers in certain ail PRRs OO PCTS eae ee a eee an ee he ea a ee ie ee TL is fe ee) ae She ae ee) oe) eh (Contents continued on page iii) LONDON International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural Histo: ry) Cromwell Road, London, ! SW7 5BD Price £7.50 (All rights reserved) ISSN 0007 - 5167 8th May 1980 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON Page WN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr.C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). Assistant Secretary: Dr. I1.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Prof. T. HABE (National Science Museum, 3-23-1 Hyakunin-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) (Councillor) Mollusca Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (20-February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972) Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September, 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Prof. Harold E. VOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crustacea Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 bis rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Lepidoptera Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231, Paris, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Jnstytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada) (17 March 1976) Nematoda Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (Bureau of Flora and Fauna, Department of Science and the Environment, P.O. Box 449, Woden, A.C.T. 2606, Australia) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 1976) (President) Diptera Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitétsgebiet Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé, Norway) (27 December 1978) Parasitology Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Octocorallia; Systematics Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W, Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Mon. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. N.E. Hickin Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Mr. C.W. Wright, C.B. Dr. G.F. deWitte B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) CONTENTS (continued from front cover) Comments Toxostoma crissale Baird, 1858 (Aves): support for proposed conser- ATION (is REISE MIAN) pons ceencaa cio tacar ei eda) alee tatelsie el klal Ge ee Proposed designation of a type species for Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818: further comment: (Y.I. Starobogatov) ............... Proposed conservation of Lethocerus Mayr, 1853 (Insecta, Hemiptera): ReNeaKerz hiner) iiss. shes rere cic SPER PE Me) fis oo, o Wie wow ete lese eas Proposed amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature regarding Ichnotaxa: (R.G. Bromley & F.T. Fiirsich)..... Opinions Opinion 1147. Status, for the purposes of type fixations, of the remains of Chironomid Larvae (Insecta, Diptera) provided by Thienemann to Kieffer for the description of new species based on the adults reared from those larvae .................-: Opinion 1148. Stabilisation of the generic name Orchelimum Audinet- Serville, 1838 and the specific name Orchelimum vulgare Harris, 1841 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by use of the plenary powers ....... New and Revived Cases Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (Mammalia: Cetacea): proposed conser- vation (DIW. Rice. do Kab Kainmian)iceet tens os sis. co isis <1 Te ge teyeas tore Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 (Nematoda): proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers (P.A.A. Loof)....... Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 (Hemiptera Heteroptera: LYGAEIDAE): proposal to designate type species by the use of the plenary powers CAEP SWECEIMAEMRTS Clee ete let c tex Meecua as eS: oe euenciieie LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] (Insecta, Lepidoptera) proposed precedence over ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861, and DASY- CHIRIDAE Packard, 1864 (D.S. Fletcher, I.W.B. Nye & D.C. RErousOn i aerscie fiz cise, Make hsver ss RANG Me eeatotits austere Harminius Fairmaire, 1852 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers (E.C. Becker) ....... Acmaea limatula Carpenter, 1864 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation by use of the plenary powers (D.R. Lindberg) ..... Rafinesque, 1822, “On the Turtles of the United States” (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed suppression by use of the plenary powers (HEM. é& RBS Smith: & DiChiszan)™.,. Sse eee. eos ee se ee ote Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed con- servation: (HeSilfverberg) aatreties,. S20 c.. keel. es Chuangia Walcott, 1911, proposed validation under the plenary powers; Shantungia Walcott, 1905, proposed addition to the Official List (Trilobita) (C. Lochman Balk, the late J. Marvin Weller & C.J. LIME LC TIO LG) eramas attr we Pato ue, Oi cite) carnage nel aParet/d os arise) oi /aslielve =) Page 11 27 30 34 37 40 49 51 53 Sif / 62 rae NY blige Le one Rm "orig tes : ", : ro rie! See oA ht) it Joy y 7 o Wh. Sea... fy eri i i ees | ia hes , p iegl ed ,! y ys i ee —. : sy 3, ae Ty) Eee Nw en Ot. w A eG Bete , C406 er - iba : , 7 %, ee ‘ oy ail ‘ te at ee SUNS! aver dion! Borel SR OM vt ae Fougl i —;! halite © WmOw : [ 7 i. : m4 : ie ttad ioe tenteti FMARS Lak 2, TRO 2 of So) Gh Saree Mawes. We ninzron: OC. 2368. SA ) a Septeal a s 3? a, ORG. 2 fA rien shia nee 5 Snap? oc. yg CR manometer’? Oo) Regia: SDP Meibede >. sid bee en he \ Leppgaraaihsen sin Wo} "tacteapess reali Ad ORR bats! ne a yank HO FEM, Mortis: -BRD) 0) DP vents mes Ms * rer, thai ‘ity tn astogeicrdia! soler AUSUM PVT?) Oets na. So stela ' 1 ae es ae “AO ; , ‘eee Ab . . vet * (2 WR, 7 . , a” , « rye , Pdatel ; ~ eis : roe Dept rlclias! me ; erty, Pratosin, Sypeenistics |S) pb Ray RN ein ry Nesey 2: inh hind ' ie ’ =a SO yee ereeks iy Uae ABA: $3 ve aff stt qed, 4 RESP TP m Pes dhe ti ts toto A peek ne i *thnitso Set H ORY * beoated - arse’ oder a> Set Sqeuert te0242 Spee ee a ; db gariege 25h US be : - m it vbichaukna Mekae sok hee Rowsbhwhieite ‘= OHA Beda onan otsineg oct )o poddenttis nae BEL Ys ; , tat: —— i se toe) cemen oflivage ols baw ey oll | we ot or adh Ms Yl dy RINT ge v0") atone)’ mele Fs iad ete ey eae) oii 25 bua wo. os fy Ie ieaae A TRUEST PUR ZOOSK At KOM ENC ET wes Ntoete0 z tellprs as Letts O2s4. anon be aes (sretqealo? niomnl) Spee wait a Gr. © oe bate 2M JA} ty woud ‘an aig batt abs *£ ‘3 at ae ee Oy oo eehee: ace) i pat oan B10. Shite? 2.0) prove eure sa betas atiito is eS . ; +B. Sct Psi a Fans tats waive dantonletaon ; in ro — ; : BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 37, part 1 (pp. 1 - 64) 8th May 1980 NOTICES (a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circum- stances the Commission may start to vote on applications pub- lished 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 aE pee of Articles 23a-b and 79b): *(1) Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (Mammalia: Cetacea): pro- posed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2081. (D.W. Rice & K.E. Kinman). (2) Prodorylaimus Andrdssy, 1959 (Nematoda): proposed designation of a type species. Z.N.(S.) 2129. (P.A.A. Loof). (3) Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 (Hemiptera Heteroptera): proposed designation of a type species. Z.N.(S.) 2197. (M.H. Sweet). (4) LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] (Insecta Lepi- doptera); proposed precedence over ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861 and DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864. Z.N{(S.) 2216. (D.S.-.Fletcher, I1.W.B. Nye & D.C. Ferguson). (5) Harminius Fairmaire, 1852 (Insecta,Coleoptera); pro- posed designation of a type species. Z.N.(S.) 2264. (E.C. Becker). *(6) Acmaea limatula Carpenter, 1864 (Mollusca, Gastro- bo (7) *(8) m2) (c) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature poda): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2268. (D.R. Lindberg). Rafinesque, 1822 “On the turtles of the United States” (Reptilia, Testudines); proposed suppression. Z.N.(S.) 2289. (H.M. & R.B. Smith & D. Chiszar). Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2291. (H. Silfverberg). Chuangia Walcott, 1911 (Trilobita); proposed conser- vation. Z.N.(S.) 635. (C. Lochman Balk, the late M.J. Weller & C.J. Stubblefield). Receipt of new applications. The following new applica- tions have been received since the publication of vol. 36(4) on 18 February 1980. Those marked with an asterisk involve the appli- cation of Articles 23a-b and 79b. (1) Dissertations, status of, as publications. Z.N.(S.) 2328. (D. Haman & R.W. Huddleston). (2) Chromis Desmarest, 1814 (Pisces); determination of gender. Z.N.(S.) 2329. (R. Bailey, C.R. Robins & P.H. Greenwood). (3) ELMIDIDAE Curtis, 1830, proposal to recognise as family-group name based on Elmis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2330. (R.B. Madge & R.D. Pope). (4) HARPIDAE in Gastropoda and Trilobita; proposals to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2331. (J.G.W. Raven). *(5) Spisula sachalinensis Schrenck, 1862 (Mollusca, Bivalvia); proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2332. (A.I. Kafanov). (6) CAECILIIDAE in Amphibia and Psocoptera; UROPLA- TINI in Reptilia and Coleoptera; proposals to remove the homonymies. Z.N.(S.) 2333.(H.M. Smith, U. Lanham & A. Loveridge). c/o British Museum (Natural History) R.V. MELVILLE Cromwell Road Secretary, International London SW7 SBD Commission on Zoological United Kingdom Nomenclature January 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 OBITUARY Dr W.E. CHINA Dr W.E. China, who died in September 1979, succeeded the present writer as Assistant Secretary to the Commission on 2 November 1959. He was elected a member of the Commission, and its Acting Secretary, on 21 May 1962. He later reverted to Assistant Secretary and served continuously in that capacity until his retirement in 1971. When he first joined the Commission’s office, China was also Keeper of Entomology at the British Museum (Natural History). Nevertheless, from the first he showed that steady deployment of energy that characterised his term of service. He immediately put into operation the new publications policy of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (the applications with their comments had previously appeared alone in the Bulletin; a separate serial had been maintained for the Opinions and Declarations). In the combined Bulletin he produced a larger number of applications and Opinions than ever before in the Commission’s history. With the help of Margaret Doyle he markedly reduced the time interval between the publication of an application and its submission to a vote. In 1963 he decided to close all cases that had been awaiting attention for more than four years, but their authors were invited to update and resubmit them if they wished. By these means and by the steadiness of his work he increased the output of the Secretariat to the point where, in one or two years, it exceeded the rate of receipt of new applications. A valedictory notice, with a portrait, was published on his retirement (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 28, p. 66, pl. 2). R.V.M ns. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TOXOSTOMA CRISSALE BAIRD, 1858 (AVES): SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.S.) 2215 (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 239-242) By E. Eisenmann (Chairman, Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress and Chairman, American Ornithologists’ Union Committee on Classification and Nomenclature) Dr J.P. Hubbard has applied for the conservation of the specific name crissale in the binomen Toxostoma crissale and the suppression of the name dorsale in combination with Toxostoma for the North American bird species universally known as the Crissal Thrasher. As the application points out, the name dorsalis [sic] was an unintended substitution by the editor or printer for crissalis [sic]; in the same paper another species was named Junco dorsalis (because of its contrasting back colour); in the manuscript the Toxostoma was named crissalis because of its contrastingly coloured crissum. When the error was detected, the next issue of the publication published a correction page to be substituted, and for many years the name Toxostoma crissalis (emended to crissale because of the gender of the generic name) was universally used. Then it was subsequently noted that, regardless of the author’s original intention, and the earliest possible correction of the editor’s or printer’s error, the in- appropriate and confusing name dorsalis or dorsale (corrected for gender) had priority. Under the Code, action by the International Commission seems required. (As the second part of his application Dr Hubbard requested an amendment of the Code to facilitate corrections of this sort in the future with- out recourse to the plenary power.) As Chairman of the two committees on ornithological nomenclature, I canvassed the committee members for their views on the application only as it related to the name of the Crissal Thrasher (leaving it to them, as individual zoologists, to write to the Commission, if they wished, on the proposed Code amendment). The bird species involved occurs only in the United States and Mexico. All members of the American Ornithologists’ Union Committee on Classification and Nomenclature (whose function is to determine scientific names for the periodically issued ‘Checklist of North American Birds’) have expressed support for Toxostoma crissale, as proposed by the applicant. A majority also of the members of the International Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature (including the two from North America) have written to me to express support; no member has indicated opposition. The International Commission is accordingly requested to conserve crissale. (Since writing the above I have heard from several European members of the International Committee who had not written previously. I can now tell the Commission that the members of both ornithological committees are unanimous in supporting Dr Hubbard’s application. With such unanimity among ornithologists it is hoped an early decision can be made.) Bull. zool. Nomencel. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 <<< LMhLhLlhlhLlLClClhlCllC eC Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5 FURTHER COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR PLEUROCERA RAFINESQUE, 1818. Z.N.(S.) 83 (see vol. 33, pp. 105-113; vol. 34, pp. 196-199; vol. 36, pp. 139-146, 196-197) By Y.I. Starobogatov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR) The name Pleurocerus acutus appeared in Blainville, 1824 (Dict. Sci. nat. vol. 32, p. 236) and, as stated by Dr Stein, is the same as Pleurocera acuta Rafinesque, 1831. We cannot attribute this specific name to Blainville because, as this author himself said, he had seen neither the animals nor the shell — in spite of the fact that Rafinesque had not mentioned the name previously. Consequently, Pleurocerus Rafinesque, in Blainville, 1824, is an erroneous subsequent spelling of Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818, but the name acutus must be attributed to ‘Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824’. Two further species were added to the genus with available names in 1831 —P. gonula (p. 2) and P. quadrosa (p. 3). I am strongly against all proposals to change the type species of Pleurocera and ask the Commission: (1) to place the generic name Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 (type species, by subsequent monotypy, Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (a) verrucosa Rafinesque, 1820, as published in the binomen Pleurocera verrucosa; (b) acuta Rafinesque, 1831, as published in the binomen Pleuro- cera acuta. In addition, I ask American malacologists to designate a neotype for Pleurocerus oblongus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824, using for that purpose a specimen of Pleurocera verrucosa, in order to clarify the status of this name. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF LETHOCERUS MAYR, 1853 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA). Z.NS.) 2161 (see vol. 35, pp. 236-238) By I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Leningrad 199164, USSR) I fully support the proposal of Dr Menke. At the same time, I must point out that Belostoma fakir Gistel ““[1847]”, in Gistel & Bromme, Handb. Naturges., 1850, p. 626, is a senior synonym of Lethocerus cordofanus Mayr, 1853. It is therefore the former name, not the latter, that should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as the valid name of the type species of Lethocerus. I may add that the date “1850” on the title page of Gistel & Bromme’s work appears to be correct. L. cordofanus has generally been used for this species, as the following references show: Hoberlandt, 1954, Acta ent. Mus. nat. Pragae vol. 29, p. 145; Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Jaczewski, 1936, Ann. Mus. zool. Polon. vol. 11, p. 190; Jordan, 1970, Handb. Zool. vol. 4(2), 2/20, p. 9; Linnavuori, 1960, Ann. zool. Soc. Vanamo, vol. 22, p. 51; 1964, Ann. Zool. Fenn. vol. 8, p.355; Lundblad, 1933, Arch. Hydrobiol., Suppl. 12, p. 52, and Dr Menke’s own references to Lauck & Menke, 1961, Menke, 1960, 1963, and Popov, 1971. It would accordingly be possible to ask for the suppression of Belostoma fakir under the provisions of Articles 23a-b and 79b. However, Dr Menke has pointed out to me that the former Article says: ‘A zoologist who considers that the application of the Law of Priority would in his judgment disturb stability . . ., and although L. cordofanus has been widely used in both taxonomic and non-taxonomic works, it scarcely qualifies for conservation by that means. The species is of no economic impor- tance, and I accept Dr Menke’s argument that L. fakir (Gistel) will quickly become established. It must be remembered that the name niloticus Stal, 1855, was in general use for this species through the second half of the nineteenth century when cordofanus Mayr, 1853 was considered doubtful because given to a nymph. Even after Montandon and Kirkaldy rejected niloticus as a junior synonym of cordofanus in 1907-1909, both names continued to be used. The introduction of fakir will thus put an end to this confusion. Editor’s Note: Dr. Menke has written to say “I agree that fakir is the name to be put on the Official List. 3.3.80.” COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE REGARDING ICHNOTAXA. Z.N(S.) 1973 By Richard G. Bromley and Franz T. Fiirsich, CUnstitut for Historisk Geologi og Palaeontologi, @stervoldgade 10, 1350 Kdbenhavn, Denmark) In its present form, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) does not provide for the nomenclature of ichnotaxa. Recent attempts by ichnologists to have the nomenclature of trace fossils recognized and pro- tected by the ICZN have been outlined by Basan, 1979. The article by Melville, 1979, on paranomenclature now offers considerable hope for a step towards the stabilization of ichnotaxa. If the amendments to the ICZN that Mr. Melville Proposes are accepted by the Commission, then several of the existing problems of ichnotaxonomy will be alleviated. However, there are some points in the proposed amendments to which ichnologists will take exception, and this would seem to be a suitable moment to air these matters, while there is still a possibility of adjusting the wording of the proposed new edition of the Code. It is hoped that the following comments will elucidate the ichnologist’s special problems of nomenclature, a system that would seem to be further removed from zoological nomenclature than most zoologists realize. PRINCIPLES OF ICHNOLOGY 2, Before going further, it will help to reiterate six of the principles of ichnology, since these have a direct bearing on the present discussion. (Their numbering herein is entirely for the purposes of this article.) Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature V Principle I. Trace fossils are structures produced in sediments and hard sub- strates (either organic or inorganic in origin) by the activity of organisms (animals, plants and protistans). Principle IJ. The nomenclature of trace fossils is based solely upon the morpho- logical characteristics of the structure. Principle II]. A particular structure may be produced by the work of two or several different organisms living together, or in succession, within the structure. Principle IV. The same individual or species of organism may produce different structures corresponding to different behaviour patterns. Principle V. The same individual or species of organism may produce different structures corresponding to identical behaviour but in different substrates, e.g. in sand, in clay, or at sand-clay interfaces. Principle VI. Identical structures may be produced by the activity of systema- tically different trace-making organisms, where behaviour is similar. Si These principles are fundamental to ichnology, and unless they are taken into account in the present discussion of the status of ichnological names, the resulting amendments to the Code will not be satisfactory to users of trace fossil nomenclature. Let us, then, discuss Mr. Melville’s remarks in the light of the six principles stated above. 4. It is clear from Principle I that trace fossils cannot logically be considered as biological parataxa. They are not “fossil fragments or detached organs . . . of the more complete fossils to which they belong” (Melville, 1979, p. 11). As sediment structures, trace fossils are to be contrasted with body fossils, which are the fossilized bodily remains of organisms. However, in one way they resemble biological parataxa for, as Mr. Melville recognizes, ‘“‘a single animal may produce a variety of structures” (Principle IV above). 26 A disadvantage in covering trace fossils by the ICZN is that many trace fossils are produced by plants (algal borings, fungal borings, lichen borings, root bioturbation and possibly algal stromatolites). Furthermore, it is not always clear to which Kingdom a trace-maker belonged on the evidence of the trace fossil alone. In any case, we must assume that the ICZN is only intended to cover a trace fossil which the palaeontologist can convince himself was produced by animal activity; the remaining taxa will remain homeless. 6. That was one of the reasons for Sarjeant & Kennedy proposing in 1973 an Ichnological Code entirely divorced from the Zoological and Botanical Codes. Their code was not a suggested proposal for amending the ICZN, and Mr. Melville need have no fear that it ‘introduces into the Animal Kingdom a number of nomenclatural principles that are foreign to our Code’. On the contrary, its intention was to extract trace fossils entirely from the ICZN. A version of the Sarjeant & Kennedy 1973 proposal, adapted for presen- tation at the International Geological Congress meeting in Sydney, has been published by Sarjeant, 1979, but has not found general acceptance among ich- nologists. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature fs The second principle is not universally accepted. This is because ichnologists comprise a spectrum of workers having widely different backgrounds, and whose approach to trace fossil nomenclature consequently varies greatly. At the one end of the spectrum stands the sedimentologist, who uses trace fossils as tools in elucidating palaeoenvironments. At the other extreme there is the zoologist, examining a group of endolithic animals and treating their fossil borings nomenclaturally as body fossils. 8. The use of morphology as the basis of nomenclature is far from free of problems. For example, the trace fossil may reveal the original mor- phology of an animal burrow, or this may have been drastically modified by diagenetic processes. A greater problem is that morphology may vary con- siderably in different parts of a single burrow system. In practice, when these different parts are found or occur separately they receive different names. (There is room here for a system of ichnoparataxa and collective-group ich- notaxa, but this problem has not yet been closely looked at.) 9. It is clear, however, that a dual nomenclature is not merely un- avoidable, but in fact is indispensable, the trace fossil being covered by an ichnotaxon and the trace-maker by a zoological or botanical taxon. Only in the case of individual occurrences is there ever a chance of ‘working out’ the biological affinities of a trace fossil, where the body fossil of the trace-maker is preserved within the trace fossil, preferably in life position, having died in the act of creating the trace. No general cross-synonymization of the taxa of the twin nomenclatures can ever be possible (Principles III, IV, V and VI). 10. We suspect, nevertheless, that it is the aspiration of many palae- ontologists that one day, when the fossil animal world is better understood than it is today, each trace fossil will be attributable to its trace-maker and the dual nomenclature will thereby be rendered unnecessary. We have a glimpse of this in Mr. Melville’s closing sentence: “Traces of living animals can always be related to their causative organism, and there is no need to name them separately”. Would that this were so! However, it is not uncommon that, for example, a fish, a crab and a shrimp, each capable of producing its own burrow, are found living commensally within a single burrow system (e.g. Atkinson, 1974). The basic branching plan of the system may owe its origin to the shimp’s excavation pattern, the enlarged diameter to the crab, the modified entrances to the fish; but the truth may be far less simple than that. Again, bivalves commonly are found inhabiting cavities in hard substrates. Did they bore these themselves or are they merely nestling in borings pro- duced by another species or, again, as a compromise, have they modified previously existing borings to suit their own requirements (Principle III)? The boring can be named at once, but its biological affinities may never be clearly understood. 11. Principle IV has been acknowledged by Mr. Melville, and he suggested that “names proposed for fossil ichnotaxa . . . do not compete in priority with names given to causative organisms”. This is a most welcome suggestion, and its acceptance will at last give impact to the twin trace-versus- body nomenclatures. 12. Principle V concerns the effects of the stratinomic and diagenetic aspects of trace fossils on their nomenclature. A burrow produced in clay and filled with clay will suffer a different diagenetic history from a sand-filled Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 burrow in sand. Again, burrows that cross lithic interfaces may receive con- trasting filling material, or be preserved as half-reliefs on sole surfaces of sand- stones. They may even remain empty. Furthermore, clay substrates retain scratch traces due to the activity of the excavator, whereas sand substrates do not. The resulting trace fossils, although having similar origins, will show a great range of morphology. 13. The sixth principle is less easily accommodated by the ICZN than no. IV, and has been mentioned neither by Sarjeant & Kennedy, 1973, nor by Melville, 1979. Misunderstanding of this principle has commonly led to mis- interpretation by those who too readily equate their trace fossils with causative organisms. Twin nomenclatures, however, will also greatly simplify this problem. FOSSIL OR NOT FOSSIL 14. Mr. Melville’s closing sentence emphasizes another point of diffi- culty: whether or not ichnotaxa should be limited to fossil material. The reason for hesitating in admitting ichnotaxa to the neontological realm is clear. The entomologist would regard a dual nomenclature for insect galls in plants as completely superfluous, a mere encumbrance. Each gall type can be worked out and ascribed to the causative species of insect. Likewise, a crustaceologist would regard it as laughable to consider the faecal pellets lying within the gut of a hermit crab as requiring a name, let alone a name different from that of the crab. The palaeontologist, however, views the situation quite differently; fossil galls and coprolites must be compared with neontological material in order that progress be made. 15. The existence of twin nomenclatures should satisfy both parties. The neontologist need never refer to ichnological taxonomy. It is the palaeon- tologist alone who has need of both. But the restriction of ichnotaxa to fossil material seems a needless hindrance and carries with it further problems, for example, the definition of the fossilization threshold. In the case of the organism itself, there are fairly distinct boundaries between the categories: living organism; dead body; body fossil. These boundaries are far from obvious, however, in the case of trace fossils. When does the work of an animal become fossilized? 16. The passage of a heart-urchin through sediment causes one sedi- ment structure to be replaced by another. If the sediment remains unlithified, one might argue that the structure never becomes fossilized. In limestone, a cavity produced by a boring sponge is a ready-made fossil that may change little with diagenesis after the death of the sponge. To prohibit the use of ichnotaxa for these structures will inflate the importance of the ‘fossilization barrier’ and reduce our chances of crossing it. 17. To give a further example: if the fossilized remains of Callianassa major were to be found in a Pleistocene Ophiomorpha nodosa, the structure could be described equally accurately as ‘the burrow of C. major’ or as ‘O. nodosa’. If, however, these twin nomenclatures are not to be used on our side of the ‘fossilization barrier’, we shall have a cumbersome descriptive system. On a modern beach we may identify ‘the burrow of C. major’ only with immense skill, by capturing the inhabitant. On the other hand, the structure itself may only be named ‘a burrow that, upon fossilization, will be O. nodosa’; 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature or perhaps we could call it an ‘incipient O. nodosa’. But how are we to deal with the bioturbated sediment that we retrieve in box cores from the sea floor, or bioerosion sculptures on rocky sea floors, when the trace-makers themselves are not in evidence? The morphology of the traces is eminently describable, but their attribution is a matter of speculation. Or may we consider these traces, once they are divorced from their makers, to be in the first stages of ‘fossilization’ and therefore genuinely deserving of ichnotaxa? CONCLUSIONS 18. We would ask the Commission to recognize the existence of twin nomenclatures covering ‘the work of an animal’ and ‘the animal’ respectively. The two nomenclatures would have equal status and would not compete in priority. 19. We urge that ichnotaxa should not be restricted to fossil material; that the word ‘incipient’ precede ichnotaxa where the trace-making organism is still working; and that new ichnospecies should not be based on unequivocally unfossilized material. REFERENCES ATKINSON, R.J.A. 1974. Spatial distribution of Nephrops burrows. Estuarine coastal mar. Sci., vol. 2, pp. 171-176. BASAN, P.B. 1979. Trace fossil nomenclature: the developing picture. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., vol. 28, pp. 143-146. MELVILLE, R.V. 1979. Further proposed amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Z.N.(G.) 182. Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 36, pp. 11-14. SARJEANT, W.A.S. 1979. Code for trace fossil nomenclature. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., vol. 28, pp. 147-167. & KENNEDY, W.J. 1973. Proposal of a Code for the nomenclature of trace fossils. Canadian J. earth Sci., vol. 10, pp. 460-475. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a OPINION 1147 STATUS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF TYPE FIXATIONS, OF THE REMAINS OF CHIRONOMID LARVAE (INSECTA, DIPTERA) PROVIDED BY THIENEMANN TO KIEFFER FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF NEW SPECIES BASED ON THE ADULTS REARED FROM THOSE LARVAE RULING.— (1) If, but only if, there is firm evidence of association of a given adult with the skins of its immature stages, those skins are biologically and for the purposes of nomenclature parts of that individual and therefore are parts of a holotype, para- type, syntype or lectotype, according to the status of the given adult in the original description, and to how the species has been subsequently treated, even if the skins had not been seen by Kieffer. (2) If skins, or larvae, or pupae, or imagos not seen by Kieffer are from a brood or batch part of which had been examined by Kieffer, then those specimens not seen by Kieffer cannot be types of species established by him but are eligible for consideration if, after the loss of the adult originally described by Kieffer, it is necessary to designate a neotype. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1968 On 12 January 1970 a letter was received from Mr M. Hirvenoja (Department of Zoology, University of Helsinki, Finland) enquiring about the status, for the purposes of type fixations, of the remains of Chironomid larvae in the collection of the late Professor Thienemann. It was Thienemann’s habit, at the beginning of this century, to collect larvae and pupae of Chironomid midges and to rear the adults which he then sent to the late Professor Kieffer for identification. Kieffer, in a number of papers, described many new species from material received in this way. Unfortunately, many of the adults are lost and the species cannot be recognised from the original descriptions. Thienemann, however, kept the larval and pupal skins, and from his careful notes it is possible in some cases, though not in all, to identify with certainty which larval remains belong to which species described by Kieffer from a single adult. Moreover, the species can be recognised from these larval remains. Eventually, after some correspondence, a joint application by Mr Hirvenoja and Dr E.J.Fittkau (Max-Planck Institut fiir Limnologie, Pl6n, Germany) was agreed with the Secretary on 15 July 1971. It Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was sent to the printer on 23 September 1971 and published on 31 December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 28, pp. 171-172. The subsequent history of the case is described in the following report by Dr I.W.B. Nye, Assistant Secretary to the Commission. MODIFIED REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE STATUS OF PUPAL AND LARVAL SKINS OF CHIRONOMIDAE (INSECTA, DIPTERA) IN THE THIENEMANN COLLECTION Z.NAS.) 1968 By I.W.B. Nye (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Dr M. Hirvenoja (University of Helsinki, Finland) first wrote to the Commission about the status of the Chironomid pupal and larval skins in the Thienemann Collection in the Max-Planck- Institut, Plon, B.R.D., on 10th January 1970. After some corres- pondence a joint application by Dr M. Hirvenoja and Dr E.J. Fittkau (Max-Planck-Institut, Plén, B.R.D.) was received on 5th April 1971, and was published on 31st December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 28, pp. 171-172. See Appendix 1. 2. Comments were received from: (a) Mr R.V. Melville (Secretary, International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature) published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 29, p. 64. See Appendix 2. (b) Dr O. Hoffrichter (Albert Ludwig University, B.R.D.) published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 29, p. 198. See Appendix 3. (c) Dr H. Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Denmark) published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, p. 76. See Appendix 4. (d) Dr James E. and Dr Mary F. Sublette (Eastern New Mexico University, U.S.A.) hitherto unpublished. See Appendix 5. 3. In June 1975 the members of the Commission were asked: (a) on Voting Paper (75)11 to vote on the proposals set out on page 172 of Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 28. See Appendix |. (b) on Voting Paper (75)12 to vote on the proposals set out on page 64 of Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 29. See Appendix 2. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 The issue on V.P.(75)11 was whether the pupal or larval remains in the Thienemann collection should be regarded as part of the syntype material or not, even if Kieffer never saw them. At the close of the voting period on 16 September 1975 there were 10 votes in favour and 8 against, with one late negative vote and two abstentions. The issue on V.P.(75)12 was whether Microcricotopus parvulus and M. rectinervis Kieffer could be interpreted by reference to the speci- mens designated by Fittkau & Lehmann (1970). At the close of the voting period on 16 September 1975 there were 16 votes in favour and 3 against, with one late affirmative vote and one absten- tion. 4. When studying the comments sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers it was evident that the wording of both sets of proposals was unsatisfactory. The Secretary of the Commission has therefore, under By-Law 24, deferred publi- cation of the decisions taken by the Commission and considers that the case should be reopened, the proposals reworded, and a new vote taken. 5. The following comments, on the proposals in Appendix 1, were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: (a) Alvarado: ‘The proposal involves a serious problem, involving perhaps all the Code. Art. 16a(viii) and Art. 17(4) should be carefully considered before ruling on this case.’ (b) Bayer: ‘The proposal of Hirvenoja & Fittkau (Bull. Zool. Nom. vol. 28, pp. 171-172) and alternative suggested by Melville (Bull. Zool. Nom. vol. 29, p. 64) raises some interesting questions and have parallels elsewhere in the animal kingdom. In addition to the insects, many crustaceans also have larval and post- larval stages different from the adults, not to mention differing adult stages according to breeding condition (as in fresh-water crayfishes), all of which leave behind moulted skins or casts that retain taxonomically usable morphological characters. Under Article 17(4) of the Code, any of these developmental stages may be used as a basis for a new taxon and, under Article 24b, names based on them compete in priority with one another and with names based upon the adult stage. ‘Similar situations exist in the Coelenterata (Hydrozoa and Scyphozoa) and other invertebrate phyla as well as in some verte- brates that have distinct and taxonomically recognizable ontogenetic stages, but these differ in that they do not leave behind any preserv- able “morphological shadow’”’. ‘Hirvenoja & Fittkau ask that the developmental stages of certain chironomid midges, as represented by their cast skins, be recognized as syntypes of the species in question, even though the 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature author who described the species upon the adult stage never saw the larvae and/or pupae or their skins, and who, therefore, did not use them in establishing the species. The desirability, and the biological validity, of using these moults of developmental! stages to settle taxonomic questions arising after the loss of the original, adult type specimens, are obvious. The question is how to do it within the framework of the Code. ‘According to Article 45b, each taxon of the species group is objectively defined by reference to its type specimen. The species now in consideration were based on a single adult specimen each — i.e. a holotype (Article 73a). I think there is no doubt that the cast skins of the earlier stages are parts of the type specimens themselves, as already was pointed out by Commissioner Lemche (Bull. Zool. Nom. vol. 30, p. 76). Unfortunately, it must also be conceded that each of these skins is a separate “specimen” as that word is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 10 (1933) 1961, and there- fore it is not part of a syntypic series, because it was not used by the author in describing the species, even though biologically it is actually a part of the holotype. ‘I am conceptually in favour of Hirvenoja and Fittkau’s pro- posal, but I vote against it because I agree with Secretary Melville’s opinion that a general ruling is undesirable at this time (Bull. Zool. Nom. vol. 29, p. 64). Based upon the Code as it stands, and upon accepted definition of words, I do not believe that cast skins of earlier stages of a holotype can be considered part of a syntypic series if they were not used by the describing author, as they are separate and distinct “specimens”. Therefore, I do not agree with the Secretary’s alternative proposal to rule that the specimens of Microcricotopus parvulus (Kieffer) and M. rectinervis Kieffer are lectotypes, as they are not eligible for that status, but I vote in favour of the proposal because these specific cases should be cleared up now. This can be accomplished in this way without prejudice to future consideration of the basic problem’. (c) Dupuis: ‘Je suis favorable a esprit des propositions de Hirvenoja & Fittkau de reconnaitre l’éminente valeur de référence du matériel de Thienemann, mais non 4 la /ettre, car je considére avec Lemche que les matériaux invoqués constituent une partie de holotype (de méme que des genitalia d’insecte, montées en préparation séparée de l’imago, sont une partie de cet individu). Je pense, avec Melville, qu’une déclaration sur le cas général ne doit pas étre hative, car elle est destinée 4 faire jurisprudence. ‘Quant aux types désignés par Fittkau & Lehmann, je regrette, toutefois, que la proposition de Melville ne soit pas plus explicite- ment formulée (comme le souhaite en général Lemche, Bull. Zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 2). Ces types ne représentent certainement pas des Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 néotypes; il ne s’agit pas non plus de syntypes (comme le pense Hoffrichter), ni de lectotypes (comme le croit Melville), mais bien des parties des holotypes. Pour l'ensemble de ces raisons, je considére qu'il n’y a pas matiére a voter dans | immédiat. ‘Jajoute, en vue d’un examen futur plus approfondi de la question, que la raison véritable de la requéte de Hirvenoja & Fittkau me paraft tenir a l’insuffisance de la définition de holotype dans le Code et son inappropriation a certaines situations taxonomiques concrétes. ‘Quant au fond, les holotypes, lectotypes et néotypes, réduits chacun a un spécimen unique et considéré comme base de la nomenclature m’ont toujours heurté car, de plus en plus, la base de la taxinomie devrait étre la population et, dans l’intérét de tous, la nomenclature ne peut vivre comme une abstraction coupée de la taxinomie. Pour cette raison, tout en affirmant la nécessité qu’un matériel type soit délimité et fini, je suis favorable 4 l’esprit des propositions de Corliss (Bull. Zool. Nom., vol. 29, p. 92) et a toute proposition qui aurait pour effet de reconnaitre certaines autres catégories de types que les trois précédentes. ‘Dans sa forme méme et dans le cas particulier des insectes holométaboles, la notion de “spécimen unique” est insuffisante car il n’y a aucun doute que les restes des stades successifs d’un méme individu holotype (chorion de loeuf, exuvies larvaires, exuvies nymphales, imago) ne soient autant de parties de cet holotype. ‘La déclaration la plus utile (en attendant mieux) serait donc de préciser que “Par spécimen unique il faut entendre aussi bien un individu donné, plus ou moins intact, conservé en une seule institu- tion, que les fragments d’un individu jadis entier ou les temoins des stades ontogénétiques successifs d’un méme individu, que ces frag- ments ou témoins soient conservés en un ou en plusieurs lieux”’. ‘L’on voit qu’une telle question mérite mieux que les votes mineurs auxquels je refuse de procéder.’ (d) Eisenmann: ‘I must vote against the proposal to desig- nate the Thienemann specimens “‘lectotypes” of Kieffer’s nominal species if — as I understand the application — Kieffer never saw the Thienemann immature instars nor was provided with pictures of them (i.e. that are not mentioned in Kieffer’s published descrip- tions). A lectotype under Art. 74 must be drawn from the original describer’s type series, i.e. his syntypes; under Art. 73c and 73c(i) the syntypes are the specimens the describer examined or those published pictures and descriptions considered by him in describing the taxon. Unless Thienemann’s instars were before Kieffer and considered by him, they cannot be called either lectotypes or syntypes. This is not merely a matter of language. Taxonomic 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature consequences can follow (as Melville correctly suggests, Bull. Zool. Nom., vol. 29, p. 64). I agree with Melville that the matter may be handled by interpreting Kieffer’s names by reference to Thienemann specimens identified by Fittkau and Lehmann, but a nomenclatural ruling should be made only in individual cases, if specialists are in agreement that the identification is correct — obviously a taxonomic question. On one point I disagree with Melville: I do not see how the Thienemann specimens (if not considered by Kieffer as part of his type series) can be designated lectotypes. It seems to me that, where adequately identified (and if the provisions of Art. 75 are otherwise met) the Thienemann specimens may be designated neo- types. In principle, the case is covered by Art. 75c(4); while that provision states that “if a nominal species is based on a sex or immature stage that lacks good diagnostic characters, the neotype may differ in that respect from the original material”, I take this to be in effect an example of an appropriate situation, not intended as a limitation to types based on immature stages. The same princi- ple should apply where the holotype was an adult and lacks the diagnostic characters known better in the immature stage, which can be demonstrated to be the same species ‘“‘from its description and from other sources”. To avoid any problem I would ask that a Declaration be issued removing from the Code, for clarification, the unnecessary and somewhat misleadingly restrictive word “‘immature”’ from Art. 75c(4). This change would not affect anything of sub- stance but would clarify the intended meaning.’ (e) Holthuis: ‘The larval or pupal skins of a specimen that later is made the holotype of a species are part of that holotype, and certainly are not syntypes and cannot be made lectotypes.’ (f) Kraus: ‘The real proposal is limited to point (9) of the application. As it evidently has been possible to identify a number of species on the basis of pupal and larval skins in the Thienemann Collection, there are no longer any problems affecting the identi- fication of those names introduced by Kieffer. I cannot see the necessity for a comprehensive ruling — at least this has not been explained sufficiently.’ (g) Mayr: ‘The revised proposal does not state as clearly as might be that two questions are involved: (a) a confirmation that larval and pupal skins are parts of the holotype, as should be evident from the Code; and (b) whether a particular set of larval and pupal skins, labelled by the same name as that given to an imago type, was correctly labelled.’ (h) Nye: ‘In a case where it can be established that the larval and pupal skins are the earlier stages of an adult described by Kieffer, the skins are part of the holotype or syntype concerned Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 and no ruling is necessary. ‘In a case where there is no imago and there are no associated skins or where there are skins or larvae or pupae which may or may not be correctly associated, then it would be preferable to leave the option for the choice of a neotype in conformity with the Code, and again no ruling is necessary.’ (i) Ride: ‘From paragraph 2 of the submission it appears that there are two classes of material involved, namely: (1) skins of specimens seen by Kieffer (i.e. parts of primary types), and (2) preserved specimens reared with those in (1) above but not seen by Kieffer. Specimens in class (1) are parts of holotypes or of syntypes. Speci- mens in class (2) are not types but may be selected as neotypes where holotypes or syntypes are lost. ‘There is no need for Commission action, but if there is any doubt in particular cases, action similar to that proposed in V.P.75) 12 can be taken.’ (j) Sabrosky: ‘I am sympathetic to the applicants’ problem, but I question whether the Commission should make the ruling requested for a given collection. However, this would be an oppor- tunity for the Commission to express a general view that would provide some guidance for the future and render future applications unnecessary. I suggest that a Declaration along the following lines be considered: (1) Where there is firm evidence of association of a given adult and its immature stage (e.g. cast skins of larvae, or pupal skin, chrysalis, cocoon or puparium), these are to be regarded as parts of that individual. (2) If that adult had been the sole type specimen, hence the holotype (designated or not), the remains of the immature stages are parts of the holotype, just as much as a separate wing on a slide, or a slide or capsule of the male or female genitalia. In the case of Microcricotopus rectinervis (Kieffer), with its implication that the species was described from only one specimen, the pupal skin of that specimen is part of the holotype, and no Commission action is needed. (3) If a species was described from two or more specimens, and these can be positively associated with the remains of their immature stages (e.g. by corresponding numbers), the remains are parts of the specimens in the type series, i.e. parts of holotypes and paratypes or parts of syntypes, according to how the species was originally described. 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (4) Resolution of the type problem outlined in the preceding paragraph depends on the material. If the remains of the immature stages of the holotype can be positively asso- ciated with it, they are parts of the holotype; if only paratypes can be so associated, the parts are parts of paratypes; if then the holotype is lost, the parts of para- types may be useful and sufficient for recognition of the species; if the holotype is lost and immature stages can- not be associated, then a neotype may be required, depending on necessity, existence of recognizable remains of paratypes, etc.; if syntypes are represented by immature stages, the latter are parts of syntypes and eligible for lectotype designation. ‘Responsibility for proper evaluation of the status of material rests with specialists themselves. I am unwilling to agree that the Commission should give a flat ruling in a given case because of the uncertainties involved. Can adults described by Kieffer be positively and individually associated with immature stages preserved by Thienemann, or is it a group association? Did Kieffer even indicate the number of specimens, so that agreement of published number and number of available immature would give a presumption of association? The applicants’ mention of occasional errors suggests that the evidence must always be evaluated critically.’ (k) Tortonese: ‘I agree with Lemche’s proposal of having the whole case dropped (except the matter concerning V.P.(75)12).’ (1) Vokes: ‘I feel that in the event that there was a disagree- ment of the sort mentioned by Mr. Melville, the problem would result in both taxonomic and nomenclatural issues that should be referred to the Commission — but that would certainly result in far fewer problems needing to be resolved than would the simple ruling on M. parvulus and M. rectinervis only.’ 6. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers for the proposals in Appendix 2: (a) Holthuis: ‘The pupal skin of Microcricotopus rectinervis mentioned by Hirvenoja & Fittkau is part of the holotype of that species and no action by the Commission is necessary. If the pupal skin of M. parvulus that Fittkau and Lehmann (1970) designated as neotype of that species is that of a syntype of parvulus, it could be made a lectotype, but not a neotype. Too little information is given here by the applicants.’ (b) Sabrosky: ‘See my comment on V.P.(75)11. We have not been given detailed information on which to base a decision in these specific cases. If the Commission were to adopt the views I have expressed on the general case, the question of these two Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 species (and probably many others) can be settled by the appli- cants without reference to the Commission. [I agree with Dr. Lemche except that for M. rectinervis, if the pupal shell is truly that of the only described specimen, it is part of the holotype, not lectotype.’ (c) Ride: ‘I disagree that the specimens are to be considered lectotypes. In the case of M. rectinervis the specimen is a part of the holotype (i.e. a shed skin); in the case of M. parvulus there appears to be some doubt and the specimen is most safely to be regarded as a neotype.’ 7. It is evident from the above comments that confusion has arisen because the proposals included two classes of material: (a) preserved larval or pupal skins (not seen by Kieffer), of imagos which had been examined by Kieffer; (b) preserved skins, or larvae, or pupae, or imagos (not seen by Kieffer), from a brood or batch including some individuals examined by Kieffer. At this point, therefore, the Secretary wrote to Professor Hirvenoja for clarification of this issue. Dr Hirvenoja replied on 14th February 1976 as follows: *, . . The main source of information is the notes of Professor Thienemann. We may there find, for instance, that one female has been reared from a stated locality; this implies a one-to-one relationship between the adult female and the pupal exuvia which will usually be mounted on a slide of which the label has the same words as the notes. In other instances we may read ‘“(date) . .. an Kieffer . . . (date) . . . zurtick”’, showing that Kieffer returned the specimens to Thienemann. In cases where several individuals were reared, it is a group relationship and the whole of the material may be in the Thienemann Collection, or it may be difficult to tell whether some specimens are in Brussels (I think Professor Thienemann gave the adults to Dr. Goetghebuer of Brussels when the latter prepared the Chironomid parts of Lindner’s Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region and of the Faune de France; these speci- mens are now in the Brussels museum in a box marked “Types de Kieffer’, but there are no Kieffer labels). Some of the adults have been lost. ‘In spite of this, I have designated lectotypes from the collec- tion in Brussels if the details agree with a single specimen in Plén. Current nomenclature follows the species concept derived from the metamorphosed material of Thienemann. ‘The Thienemann specimens represent only a part of the species described by Kieffer. For instance, there are about 200 species of Cricotopus (or Trichocladius) in “‘Lindner’’, but it has been possible to redescribe only about 50 of these. The Thienemann 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature material was very important in my revision of this group (Hirvenoja, 1975, Ann. Zool. Fennici, vol. 10(1), pp. 1-363). There are several synonyms, but about a quarter of the names in the literature are regarded as nomina dubia!’ 8. The general consensus from the comments by members of the Commission quoted above was that in cases of specimens in class (a) above, where there is firm evidence of association of a given adult with the skins of its immature stages, these skins are biologically and for the purposes of nomenclature parts of that individual, and therefore are parts of holotypes, paratypes, syntypes, lectotypes etc. according to how the species was originally described and subsequently treated. In cases of specimens in class (b) above, those specimens not seen by Kieffer cannot be types of species established by him but are eligible for designation as neotypes when the primary type (and its parts) is lost. 9. Once the Commission has ruled on the proposals in paragraph 10 below there is no need for any action by the Commission on Microcricotopus parvulus (Kieffer, 1909) and M. rectinervis (Kieffer, 1911). From the information given in the original application (see Appendix 1), the type of the former, established as Cricotopus parvulus, is a neotype, whereas the type of the latter, established as Cricotopus rectinervis must be a part of the holotype. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is asked to rule that in the case of species of CHIRONOMIDAE established by Professor J.J. Kieffer from adults provided by Professor A. Thienemann: (a) if, and only if, there is firm evidence of association of a given adult with the skins of its immature stages, these skins are biologically and for the purposes of nomen- clature parts of that individual and therefore are parts of holotypes, paratypes, syntypes, lectotypes etc. according to how the species was originally described and subsequently treated, even though the skins had not been seen by Professor Kieffer; (b) if the skins, or larvae, or pupae, or imagos not seen by Kieffer are from a brood or batch part of which had been examined by Kieffer, then those specimens not seen by Kieffer cannot be types of species established by him but are eligible for designation as neotypes when the primary type (and its parts) is lost. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 Appendix 1 (from Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 28: 171-172) REQUEST FOR RULING ON THE STATUS OF PUPAL AND LARVAL SKINS OR PUPAE AND LARVAE IN THE THIENEMANN COLLECTION, ASSOCIATED WITH ADULTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED AND NAMED BY KIEFFER (INSECTA, DIPTERA, CHIRONOMIDAB). Z.N.S.) 1968 By M. Hirvenoja (Dept. of Zoology, University of Helsinki, Finland) and E.-J. Fittkau (Max-Planck-Institut fiir Limnologie, Plén, Germany) It was the practice of the late Professor August Thienemann, at the beginning of the century, to rear chironomid midges from larvae and pupae. The adults he sent to Professor J.J. Kieffer for identification. In his numerous publications Kieffer usually described and named the species, when new. Kieffer’s adult material has in many cases been lost, and in any case it is often not possible to identify the species from the descriptions. 2. The Thienemann collection in Plon, Germany, contains several pupal skins or pupae and associated larvae or larval skins of the species sent to Kieffer and these were described by Thienemann in his papers on the metamorphosis of the midges. 3. Kieffer’s descriptions of the adults are inadequate, but from Thiene- mann’s descriptions of the larval and pupal instars and the specimens in his collection we can identify a number of Kieffer’s species (Brundin 1956: Nahe Wiulker 1956: 4; Fittkau 1962: 6; Fittkau & Lehmann 1970: 392). If this were not the case we should have very many nomina dubia among European Chironomidae. 4. There have been occasional errors (cf. Fittkau & Lehmann 1970: 392), where the development stages in the Thienemann collection do not belong to the adult described under the same name. 5. The development stages may have greater value from the nomen- clatural point of view than the adults, many of which have been lost and cannot be identified from Kieffer’s descriptions especially where the specimen is a female. 6. Fittkau & Lehmann (1970) have designated as a neotype the pupal skins of Microcricotopus parvulus (Kieff.) and M. rectinervis (Kieff.) from the Thienemann collection. According to Thienemann (1912: 76) only one male specimen of the latter species has been reared. Thus the neotype in question logically is a part of the holotype described by Kieffer. 7. Since the pupae, larvae and especially the pupal and larval skins in Thienemann’s collection are actually earlier stages of the adults Kieffer des- cribed, could they not be regarded as part of the type series, that is syntypes from which a lectotype could be designated? 8. It is not possible to apply Article 24b in this case, as that deals with the priority of names given to different parts of the same species. 9. The Commission is therefore requested to give a ruling that in the Kieffer-Thienemann problem in the Chironomidae: The pupal and larval skins or pupae and larvae in the Thienemann collection are to be regarded as part of the syntype material in cases 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature where the revisor recognizes the association and may consequently be designated as lectotypes in spite of the fact that Kieffer never saw these pupal and larval skins or these pupae and larvae. REFERENCES BRUNDIN, L. 1956. Zur Systematik der Orthocladiinae (Dipt. Chironomidae). Rep. Inst. Freshwat. Res. Drottningholm 37: 5-185 FITTKAU, E.-J. 1962. Die Tanypodinae (Diptera: Chironomidae) (Die Tribus Anatopyniini, Macropelopiini und Pentaneurini). Abh. Larvalsyst. Insekten 6: 1-453 FITTKAU, E.-J., and LEHMANN, J. 1970. Revision der Gattung Microcrico- topus Thien u. Harn. (Dipt., Chironomidae). Jnt. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 55: 391-402 THIENEMANN, A. 1912. Beitrige zur Kenntnis der westfalischen Siisswasser- fauna. IV. Die Tierwelt der Bache des Sauerlandes. Jahresber. Westf. Proy.-Ver. Wiss. Kunst. 40: 43-83 WULKER, W. 1956. Zur Kenntnis der Gattung Psectrocladius Kieff. (Dipt. Chironom.). Individuelle Variabilitat, Grenzen und Mdglichkeiten der Artentrennung, Okologie und Verbreitung. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 24: 1-66 Appendix 2 (from Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 29: 64) COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION CONCERNING PUPAL AND LARVAL STAGES OF CHIRONOMIDAE IN THE THIENEMANN COLLECTION. Z.NAS.) 1968 (see volume 28, pages 171-172) By R.V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) It seems to me that the applicants in this case are asking the Commission to make a general ruling that is contrary to the spirit (though admittedly not infringing the letter) of Article 74(c). Furthermore, the ruling requested might be held to trespass into strictly taxonomic territory, especially if, for example, two revisors disagreed on subjective grounds as to the association of a particular Thienemann instar with a particular Kieffer adult. If such a situation were to arise, the existence of a ruling by the Commission that all Thienemann’s instars were available for designation as lectotypes might be held to prejudice the taxonomic situation. On the other hand, a request for a ruling that Microcrico- topus parvulus (Kieffer) and M. rectinervis Kieffer were to be interpreted by reference to the specimens designated by Fittkau and Lehmann (1970) would be unobjectionable; and later cases of the same kind can be dealt with indivi- dually on their merits. The ruling should make it clear that the specimens involved in the present application are lectotypes, not neotypes. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 Appendix 3 (from Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 29: 198) COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULING ON THE STATUS OF SPECIMENS IN THE THIENEMANN COLLECTION. Z.N.(S.) 1968 (see volume 28, pages 171-172) O. Hoffrichter (Biological Institute, Albert Ludwig University, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) I would like to comment on the paper from Drs. Hirvenoja and Fittkau (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28, 5/6, 1971 : 171-172), from whom I received a separate. I strongly support the authors’ request specified therein. It seems that in the insects alone there is the situation of three different stages attributable to a single individual. While, in general, the imago is taken as holotype, it is possible to do this with any stage. I know the Pl6n collection of Thienemann’s material, which is in an excellent state. At the present time, I myself have borrowed some material from it. As Kieffer usually did not preserve the imagines the metamorphosis stages deposited in Plon are the only remainders of the individuals which constituted holotypes of many species. Thus, it is only reasonable to comply with the author’s request. Even if there were larval and/or pupal skins of species which in these stages cannot be identified to the species by themselves until now, it can be foreseen that in the future there will be more details available for identification, when modern or more refined methods of description and determination (multi-variate analysis e.g.) are applied to them. Since these skins would be “ner se” the key species of an identification key, it seems almost inevitable to rule them as syntype material. By ruling according to the author’s proposal, quite a number of species of Chironomidae could finally receive existing types. This is very desirable, as currently many revisers are involved in a worldwide revision of many groups of this family. Appendix 4 (from Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 30: 76) COin MENT ON THE PROPOSED RULING ON THE STATUS OF SPECIMENS IN THE THIENEMANN COLLECTION Z.NAS.) 1968 (see volumes 28, pages 171-172) By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) The shells of foraminifera, brachiopods, and molluscs, etc., etc., as well as innumerable fossils of different kinds are based on less than whole specimens but are nevertheless at any time accepted for selection as primary types. The only unfortunate thing in the problem as here presented seems to me to be that Fittkau & Lehmann (1970) have designated a “‘neotype”’ instead of following the normal procedure and make it part of the holotype. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature May I suggest that the label in question is altered accordingly, and that the whole case may then be dropped. Appendix 5 COMMENT ON THE REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE STATUS OF PUPAL AND LARVAL SKINS OR PUPAE AND LARVAE IN THE THIENEMANN COLLECTION, ASSOCIATED WITH ADULTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED AND NAMED BY KIEFFER (INSECTA, DIPTERA). Z.N. (S.) 1968 (See Volume 28, pages 171-172) By James E. and Mary F. Sublette (Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, New Mexico, U.S.A.) We would support the request to recognize the Thienemann larval and pupal specimens as part of a syntypic series which included the adults described by Kieffer only if the association is unequivocally assured by either (1) a statement in a publication of Thienemann that the adults were described by Kieffer, or (2) the curated material at Plén bears an original label which states the material is associated with adults described by Kieffer. In light of the generally poor quality of the Kieffer descriptions, a designation of a lectotype from the Thienemann material would promote stability in a family notorious for nomenclatural change. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION Dr Nye’s report was circulated on 22 November 1977 with Voting Paper (1977)27, in which the members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against the proposals set out in paragraph 10 of the report. At the close of the voting period on 22 February 1978, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Brinck, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado (a condi- tional vote with the majority), Vokes, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Corliss, Starobogatov, Dupuis, Nye, Bayer, Heppell, Ride. Negative Votes — two (2): Mroczkowski, Cogger. Late affirmative votes were returned by Habe and Welch. Bernardi was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Binder, Kraus and Willink. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Eisenmann: ‘I favour clearing up the problems of the indivi- dual case, but do not wish my vote taken as a position on the complex general principle.’ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 Alvarado: ‘At a consultative meeting of the Entomological Group of the Real Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural we did not reach a conclusive opinion. | therefore prefer to vote with the majority.’ Mroczkowski: ‘I must vote against the modified request for a ruling on the status of pupal and larval skins in the Thienemann collection, and in particular against part (a) of the request. My objections are as follows: ‘(1) The pupal or larval skin and the adult reared from the same specimen are biologically parts of the same individual, but are different objects, and therefore for the purposes of nomenclature are not the same. Likewise in Gastropoda, the shell and the body are two different “objects” of one specimen. ‘(2) The description of species based on only one “‘object”’ is not so exhaustive as one based on all “‘objects’”. If the author examined some “objects” of one specimen, the taxonomic conclusions may be different from those reached if only one “object” is examined. Typical cases arise in Gastropoda: descriptions based on shell and body and those based on empty shells only lead to different taxonomic conclusions. (3) “The type series of a species consists of all the specimens on which its author bases the species. . ."” [Code Art. 72b]. For me it is clear that only the objects that the author of the species had at his disposal make the type series. ““Objects” of the same specimen that were not at the describer’s disposal cannot be called holotype, paratype, syntype or lectotype. ‘(4) In the new edition of the Code, one word in Art. 72b should be changed: “specimens’”’ should be replaced by “material’’. “(5) In consequence, neither of the classes of material in the Thienemann collection belongs to the type series, but these speci- mens should be given preference if and when neotypes are desig- nated.’ Cogger: “Given the wording of the first part of the proposal and the ambiguity of the second part, I must vote against it. ‘Although I agree with the intention of part (a), the issue concerns the “given adult’ and so the phrase’ “. . . according to how the species was originally described . . .”’ should more pro- perly read “. . . according to the status of the given adult in the original description.” [This improved wording has been incor- porated into the ruling. R.V.M.] ‘The intention of part (b) is surely covered, at least in part, by part (a), i.e. it covers those cases in which there is no firm evi- dence of association of a given adult with the skins of its immature - stages. However, this part of the proposal seems to run contrary to Art. 73c by automatically excluding from type status specimens 9 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature that may indeed be types, even though they are not at this time identifiable as such; how, under the circumstances described in this part, does one determine with certainty that the primary type and all its parts are lost?’ [Dr Nye observes: ‘There can be no certainty that all parts are physically lost, but if unlabelled as such they are “lost” so far as the type series is concerned.’ ] ORIGINAL REFERENCES Since no names, nor any titles of works, were placed on any Official List or Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion, there are no original references to be cited. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on V.P.(77)27 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 on Zoological Nomen- clature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1147. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 18 December 1979 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 OPINION 1148 STABILISATION OF THE GENERIC NAME ORCHELIMUM AUDINET-SERVILLE, 1838 AND THE SPECIFIC NAME ORCHELIMUM VULGARE HARRIS, 1841, (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838, as published in the bino- men Xiphidium glaberrimum; (b) cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838, as published in the binomen Orchelimum cuticulare. (2) The generic name Orchelimum Audinet-Serville, 1838 (gender: neuter), type species, by subsequent designation by Kirby, 1906, Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2097. (3) The specific name vulgare Harris, 1841, as published in the binomen Orchelimum vulgare, (the valid specific name, through the suppression of Xiphidium glaberrimum under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, of the type species of Orchelimum Audinet- Serville, 1838) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2699. (4) The following specific names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) and (1) (b) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen Xiphidium glaberrimum (Name Number 1061); (b) cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838, as published in the binomen Orchelimum cuticulare (Name Number 1062). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2060 An application for the stabilisation of the generic name Orchelimum Audinet-Serville, 1838 and the specific name Orcheli- mum vulgare Harris, 1841, was first received from Dr V.R. Vickery (Lyman Entomological Museum, Macdonald Campus of McGill University, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada, H9X 3M1) on Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 14 January 1974. The text of the application was agreed but was held back pending the publication of a relevant paper by Vickery & Johnstone in 1974 (Canadian Entomol. vol. 106, pp. 423-428) and was sent to the printer on 27 August 1974. It was published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 218-220. The application was supported by Dr Ashley B. Gurney (Systematic Entomology Lab USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) and Professor T.J. Walker (Unstitute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida). A proposal for a modification of the formal proposals was put forward by Dr Lemche (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 134). No adverse comment touching the main object of the application was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 7 April 1978 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on Voting Paper (1978) 7 for or against the proposals set out on p. 219 of vol. 31 and modified on p. 134 of vol. 32 of the Bulletin of zoological Nomenclature. At the close of the voting period on 7 July 1978 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — 20 (twenty) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Brinck, Vokes, Sabrosky, Cogger, Habe, Mroczkowski, Tortonese, Binder, Willink, Nye, Alvarado, Corliss, Starobogatov, Heppell, Welch, Bayer, Ride. Negative Vote — Bernardi. No voting papers were returned by Dupuis and Kraus. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to names placed on Offical Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: cuticulare, Orchelimum, Audinet-Serville, 1838, Hist. nat. Ins. Orth., pp. 523-524 glaberrimum, Xiphidium, Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. vol. 2(2), Part. p. 707 Orchelimum Audinet-Serville, 1838, Hist. nat. Ins. Orth., p. 522 vulgare, Orchelimum, Harris, 1841, Rep. Ins. Mass. injur. Veget., p. 130. The following is the reference to a type-species fixation accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838 as type species of Orchelimum Audinet-Serville, 1838 by Kirby, 1906, Syn. Cat. Orth., II, Orth. Salt.,,.v@lals.p.2-73. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (78)7 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion Number 1148. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 18 December 1979 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MESOPLODON GERVAIS, 1850 (MAMMALIA: CETACEA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S) 2081. By Dale W. Rice (National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 32, Seattle, Washington 98115) and Kenneth E. Kinman (665 West 3rd, Hoisington, Kansas 67544, USA) The purpose of this application is to request the suppression of Nodus Wagler, 1830, so that Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850, can con- tinue to be used in its generally accepted sense for a genus of beaked whales in the family ZIPHIIDAE. 2. Hershkovitz, 1966 (Catalog of living whales, Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. No. 246: 125) lists five generic names that have priority over Mesoplodon, a genus containing 12 species. The following synonymy lists the names relevant to the present discussion: Aodon Lesson, 1828 (Hist. nat. Mamm. Ois. 1788, vol. 1: pl. 3), type species: Aodon dalei Lesson, 1828 (: 149, pl. 3), by monotypy. Aodon Lesson, 1828, is a junior homonym of Aodon Lacépéde, 1789, — Pisces. Nodus Wagler, 1830 (Nat. Syst. Amphibien: 34). Established as an objective replacement name of Aodon Lesson, 1828, type- species Aodon dalei Lesson, 1828, a junior subjective syno- nym of Physeter bidens Sowerby, 1804 (Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., vol. 7: 310). Micropterus Wagner, 1846 (in Schreber, Sdéugethiere, vol. 7: 352), type species: Delphinus micropterus Cuvier, 1829 (Régne animal, ed. 2, vol. 1: 288), by monotypy. D. micropterus is a junior subjective synonym of Physeter bidens Sowerby, 1804. Micropterus Wagner, 1846, is a junior homonym of Micropterus Lacépede, 1802, — Pisces. Micropteron Eschricht, 1849 (Kongl. dansk. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr., ser. 5, vol. 1: 97). An incorrect subsequent spelling of Micro- pterus Wagner, 1846. Mikropteron Eschricht, 1849 (: 98). An incorrect subsequent spelling of Micropterus Wagner, 1846. Dioplodon Gervais, 1850 (Annales Sci. nat., ser. 3 (Zool.), vol. 14: 16, lines 19-20), type species Delphinus densirostris Blainville, 1817 (Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., vol. 9: 178) by original desig- nation. Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (: 16, line 26), type species Delphinus Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 sowerbensis Blainville, 1817 (:177), by original designation. D. sowerbensis is an unnecessary objective replacement name for Physeter bidens Sowerby, 1804. 3.Aodon and Micropterus, being preoccupied, need not con- cern us here. Hershkovitz (: 127) discusses the status of the other names in the following passage: ‘As shown in the generic synonymy, the names Nodus Wagler, Micropteron Eschricht, and Dioplodon Gervais take priority, in the order given, over Mesoplodon Gervais. The first, Nodus, has had no currency as a senior synonym of Mesoplodon. It has, instead, been cited incorrectly as a junior syno- nym of Hyperoodon Lacépéde (cf. Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951; Hall & Kelson, 1959). The second, Micropteron, has been used rarely in the primary literature and never during this century. Both Nodus and Micropteron would be regarded as nomina oblita by adherents to Article 23 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Dioplodon was published simultaneously with Mesoplodon but generally has been cited from a later publication. Although Dioplodon has line priority over Mesoplodon, it may be treated as a junior synonym of it in accordance with Article 24a(i) of the International Code.’ 4.The generic names Micropteron and Mikropteron were used by Eschricht, 1849 (:97, 98). A translation of the usage on page 97 is as follows: ‘It is perhaps safe to compare fossil species whose exact correspondence with living species has been fully established with those of the genus Micropteron, whereas the rest should at least for the time being remain under the common desig- nation of Ziphius’. A translation of the usage on page 98 is as POMOWSrcotns 2 Failing that, the name of the bottle-nosed whales, Rhynchoceti, appears to be most suitable, and this group would therefore consist of the following genera: 1) Chaenocetus, the true bottle-nosed whale or duck whale, 2) Mikropteron, the short-finned bottle-nosed whales to which, apart from the still-living Delphinus micropterus, further fossil species would have to be added, and 3) Ziphius as an at least provisional generic name for the fossil bottle- nosed whales whose generic characteristics it has not yet been possible to determine.’ There is no evidence in these extracts nor in the rest of the work that these names are anything other than incorrect subsequent spellings of Micropterus Wagner, 1846. How- ever. Hershkovitz, 1961 (Fieldiana Zool. vol. 39: 55 7) stated ‘Micropterus Wagner is invalidated by Micropterus Lacépéde, 1802, a genus of fish. In 1849, however, Eschricht (Kongl. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skrift., (5), 1: 97) independently erected the same generic tautonym for Delphinus micropterus Cuvier but wrote it Micropteron. This form of the name is valid.’ Hershkovitz made no 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature mention of Mikropteron. 5. Hershkovitz, 1961 (: 557) used Nodus as a valid name, but later (1966: 125) he considered this name to be a nomen oblitum and used Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850. The Zoological Record shows the following works published from 1970 to 1973 alone in which Mesoplodon is used as a valid name: Dixon, J.M., 1970, Victorian Nat., vol. 87: 88—93. Ross, G.J.B., 1970, Ann. Cape Prov. Mus., vol. 8:195—204 Sergeant, D.E. and others, 1970, /. Fish. Res. Board Canada, vol. 27: 1903—1915. Smet, W.M.A. de, 1970, Naturalistes Belg., vol. 51: 118—124. Varona, L., 1970, Poeyana (A) (69): 1—17. Besharse, J.C., 1971, J. Mammal., vol. 52: 297—315. Best, P.B., 1971, Mammals of Africa (Washington D.C.): 2. Caldwell, D.K. & Caldwell, M.C., 1971, J. Mammal., vol. 52: 206—209; Gaskin, D.E., 1971, N.Z. J. Mar. freshw. Res., vol. 5: 318—325. Kasuya, T., 1971, Sci. Rep. Whale Res. Inst. Tokyo (23): 129—137. Moore, J.C., 1972, Fieldiana Zool., vol. 62: 1—19; Nishiwaki, M. and others, 1972, Sci. Rep. Whale Res. Inst. Tokyo (24): 43—56. Praderi, R., 1972, Commun. zool. Mus. Hist. nat. Montevideo, vol. 10(237): 1—7. Robson, E.D. & van Bree, P.J.H., 1972, Tuatara, vol. 19: 101—102. Massey, C.I., 1973, Naturalist (Leeds) (925): 28. Morzer Bruyns, W.E.J., 1973, Saugertierk. Mitt., vol. 21: 75—77. Robineau, D., 1973, Mammalia, vol. 37: 504—5 13. It would be possible to add about another 50 relevant refer- ences published in the last 50 years. 6. Substitution of Nodus Wagler, 1830, for Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850, would upset long-standing nomenclatural stability and universality. The names of their type species are universally accepted as synonyms of one another and in this well known group of whales there is no possibility of the senior name ever being required for use. It is therefore more straightforward to ask for the suppression of the senior name rather than ask that Mesoplodon be granted nomenclatural precedence. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Nodus Wagler, 1830, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation, Delphinus sowerbensis Blainville, 1817; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) bidens Sowerby, 1804, as published in the binomen Physeter bidens (valid specific name of the type species of Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Nodus Wagler, 1830, as suppressed by use of the plenary powers in (1) above; (b) Micropteron Eschricht, 1849, an incorrect subse- quent spelling of Micropterus Wagner, 1846; (c) Mikropteron Eschricht, 1849, an incorrect subse- quent spelling of Micropterus Wagner, 1846. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PRODORYLAIMUS ANDRASSY, 1959 (NEMATODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S)2129 By P.A.A. Loof (Landbouwhogeschool, 6700 ES Wageningen, Netherlands) In 1959 Andrassy (Acta zool. Acad. Sci. Hungaricae vol. 5: 196) erected the new genus Prodorylaimus, designating as type species Dorylaimus longicaudatus Biutschli, 1874, and giving a key to the four originally included species. 2.The description of D. longicaudatus by Bitschli, 1874 (Abh. Senckenb. naturforsch. Ges. vol. 9: 256) is very insufficient. He says: ‘I only want to mention this species as I cannot describe it exactly’ (See Appendix). The type locality was not indicated. The material consisted of a few juvenile specimens, of which some di- mensions were given, the most notable of which was the tail length, 0.78 mm. No dorylaim is known in which the juvenile stages have such a long tail. As D. lJongicaudatus was found in garden soil with D. (now Paralongidorus) maximus, it may be inferred that the type locality is somewhere in southern Germany. Examination of ten soil samples from this region — and from localities where P. maximus occurs — did not yield any dorylaim conforming to Butschli’s des- cription. The further morphology of D. longicaudatus was said not to differ from that of other Dorylaimus species. At that time, how- ever, the genus Dorylaimus contained species now placed in several families of the Order Dorylaimida: DORYLAIMIDAE, APORCE- LAIMIDAE, ACTINOLAIMIDAE, NYGOLAIMIDAE, DISCO- LAIMIDAE, LONGIDORIDAE and BELONDIRIDAE. Long-tailed species occur in quite a number of genera of these families: Prodory- laimus, Mesodorylaimus, Dorylaimus, Laimydorus, Paradorylaimus, Ischiodorylaimus, Oxydirus, Xiphinema, Actinolaimus and others. Thus D. longicaudatus is a species dubia verging on the status of a nomen nudum. It is uncertain to which of the families named above it belongs. The type specimens are not preserved. 3. It would be possible to fix the meaning of D. longicaudatus by means of a neotype: after all, many species of the older authors were described insufficiently and no types are preserved. To treat all such names as nomina dubia would cause great nomenclatural and taxonomic confusion. However, whereas in many such cases a neo- type can be designated from topotypes, that is impossible in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 case under consideration because the type locality is not known. In many cases, also, there is a tradition that can be maintained if there are no strong reasons against it, but in the present case there are such reasons, and the tradition should be maintained. 4. In 1876 (Tijdschr. ned. dierkd. Ver. vol. 2: 78-196), 1880 (ibid. vol. 5: 1—104) and 1884 (Die frei in den reinen Erde und im siissen Wasser lebenden Nematoden der niederlandischen Fauna, Leiden, Brill, 206 pp.), de Man described, under the name D. longi- caudatus Biitschli, a nematode species from the Netherlands. Subsequently the name appeared regularly in the literature and was evidently used in de Man’s sense — this is the tradition referred in the preceding paragraph. The few measurements given by Butschli are against the supposition that this tradition is correct; his speci- mens were at most larvae of the third stage (witness his remark on the gonad primordium); they had a body length of 2.9 mm and a tail length of 0.78 mm. D. longicaudatus sensu de Man is, when adult (i.e. two stages later) 2.5—3.6 mm long and has a tail of 0.4— 0.6 mm. It is utterly improbable that the adult female should be no longer than the third-stage larva and have a much shorter tail. If ‘proof is too strong a word, this is a strong reason against the con- specificity of D. longicaudatus Biutschli and D. longicaudatus auctorum. The latter must evidently be renamed. A subjective junior synonym is available: Prodorylaimus longicaudatoides Altherr, 1968, Limnologica (Berlin) vol. 6: 270—272. 5.In Andrassy’s key mentioned in the first paragraph, some measurements were given for P. longicaudatus which show that his concept of the species was different from both Butschli’s and de Man’s. The true identity of Andrassy’s P. Jongicaudatus is uncertain; probably it is a composite compiled from several literature data. In 1969, however (Opusc. zool. Inst. Zoosyst. Univ. Budapest vol. 9 (2): 189), Andrassy gave a reference to de Man, 1876 and 1884 and (: 190—192) redescribed P. longicaudatus; his description clearly shows that he is dealing with P. longicaudatoides. 6. It is thus certain that the genus Prodorylaimus was based upon a misidentified type species, so that the matter must be laid before the Commission. There are three possibilities: (a) following Art. 70a(iii), D. Jongicaudatus Bitschli, 1874 is designated as type species. This is undesirable because it would make Prodorylaimus a genus dubium and would result in great nomenclatural instability; (b) following Art. 70a(i), D. longicaudatus sensu Andrassy, 1959 is designated as type species. This is also undesir- able because the identity of this species is uncertain and 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature it has no name of its own. (c) following Art. 70a(ii), D. longicaudatus in the sense in which it has been used since 1876, i.e. P. longicauda- toides, is designated as type species. As good descriptions of this species exist and its identity is unambiguous, this seems the best solution. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 and, having done so, to designate Prodorylaimus longicaudatoides Altherr, 1968 as type species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Prodorylaimus longicaudatoides Altherr, 1968, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name longicaudatoides Altherr, 1968, as published in the binomen Prodorylaimus longicaudatoides (specific name of type species of Prodorylaimus Andrdssy, 1959) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. APPENDIX Original description of Dorylaimus longicaudatus Butschli, 1874. ‘Auf diese Art erlaube ich mir hier nur hinzuweisen, da ich nicht im Stande bin, dieselbe in ihren Eigenthimlichkeiten genau zu beschreiben. Sie zeichnet sich durch die bedeutende Lange ihres haarfein auslaufenden Schwanzes aus. Da ich jedoch von ihr nur unreife Thiere sah, so bin ich Uber ihre Gesémmtlange ungewiss, jedoch scheint dieselbe nich unbetrachtlich zu sein, da ein Thier von 2.9 mm noch keine weitere Entwicklung seiner bohnenformigen Geschlechtsanlage zeigte. Die Linge des Schwanzes betrug bei demselben 0.78 mm (1/3 — 1/4 der Kérperlange). Der Oesophagus mass 1/5 der K6rperlange. Die iibrigen Charaktere waren simmtlich wenig verschieden von denen der ubrigen Arten dieser Gattung. Das Thier fand sich mit der vorhergehenden Art in derselben Gartenerde.’ (Note: ‘die vohergehende Art’ is Dorylaimus (now Paralongi- dorus) maximus). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 PEGGICHISME KIRKALDY, 1904 (HEMIPTERA HETEROP- TERA: LYGAEIDAE): PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE A TYPE SPECIES BY THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.NAS.) 2197 By Merrill H. Sweet (Departments of Biology and Entomology, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843) Peggichisme was proposed by Kirkaldy, 1904 (Entomologist vol. 37: 280) as a new replacement name for Davila Distant, 1893 (Biol. cent.-Amer. Heteroptera vol. 1, Suppl.: 394), which was preoccupied by Davila Gray, 1853, for a genus of bivalved molluscs. In the original publication Distant described three new species in Davila, D. consanguineus, D. concavus and D. pallescens (it is not clear why he gave the first two names masculine terminations), and these were the only originally included species. As was the practice at the time, neither Distant nor Kirkaldy designated a type species for the genus in question. The choice of type species becomes important because of the question of the synonymy of Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904, with Ozophora Uhler, 1871 (Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist.: 102). It is the thesis of the present application that the designations of Davila concavus Distant, 1893 (op. cit.: 395—396) as type species of Peggichisme by Van Duzee, 1916, (List Hemiptera N. Amer.: 22) and Sweet, 1967 (Ann. entomol. Soc. Amer. Vol. 6: 223) were both in error since the designations in each case were based on specimens of Davila consanguineus Distant, 1893 ( op. cit.: 395), misidentified as Ozophora concava (Distant, 1893). 2. Both Slater (1964, Cat. Lygaeidae World: 1048) and Van Duzee, 1917 (Cat. Hemiptera N. Amer.: 188) attributed the synonymising of Davila Distant with Ozophora Uhler to Barber (1918, J. New York entomol. Soc. vol. 26: 53), though Barber had merely noted that Uhler, 1894, had placed Davila asa synonym of Ozophora. Actually Uhler, 1894 (Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1894: 186) only said that Davila consanguineus Distant was congeneric, if not conspecific, with Ozophora burmeisteri (Guérin), which is a specific, not a generic synonymy. Therefore the formal synonymising of Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 with Ozophora Uhler, 1871, should be attributed to Van Duzee, 1916. 3. Van Duzee, 1916 (List Hemiptera N. Amer.: 22) also synonymised Peggichisme consanguineus (Distant) with Ozophora _ picturata Uhler, 1871 (the type species, by monotypy, of Ozo- phora), an action clearly resulting from specimens of O. picturata and other closely related species being misidentified as Ozophora consanguinea by Uhler (Blatchley, 1926) and Van Duzee himself, as evidenced by determination labels in several collections. Sweet, ae EN aa ae SBE TTT 7. Li SOS SP Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1967, raised consanguineus Distant from synonymy with QO. picturata, placed it together with concavus Distant in Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904, and left pallescens Distant, 1893, in Ozophora Uhler, 1871. 4.It should be understood that the species of the OZO- PHORINI of the New World are very similar in superficial colora- tion and appearance, and would be especially difficult to recognise from the illustrations in the Biologia centrali-Americana. | have been able to study the type series of Distant’s species of Davila in the light of Scudder’s 1967 lectotype designations and find, as Scudder noted (1967, Bull. brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) Entomol., vol. 20 (6): 267) that the syntypes of concava include representatives of four species. This makes the confusion about the identity of concava understandable. Most of the specimens in museums that had been identified as O. concava (Distant) by Barber and previous authors, including Van Duzee, were actually specimens of O. consanguinea (Distant), as were the specimens I examined when I elevated Peggichisme. . 5. This is, therefore, clearly a case of a misidentified type species. Specimens of D. consanguineus Distant were not present in the syntype series of D. concavus Distant. Scudder, 1967, also recognised the specific distinctness of D. consanguineus. It is there- fore my considered judgement, based on specimens of or near O. picturata Uhler being misidentified as Davila consanguineus Distant by Uhler, Van Duzee and Barber, and specimens of Peggichisme consanguinea (Distant) being similarly misidentified as O. concava (Distant), that when Van Duzee selected Davila concavus Distant, 1893, as the type species of Peggichisme, he actually had in mind or before him specimens of D. consanguineus Distant, 1893, unfor- tunately misidentified as D. concavus. Furthermore, Van Duzee probably would not in any case have selected D. consanguineus as type species because he erroneously considered that quite distinct species as synonymous with Ozophora picturata Uhler. 6. Accepting Peggichisme [= Davila] consanguinea (Distant, 1893) as the correct name for the specimens misidentified as Ozophora concava (Distant, 1893) would clear the way for a change in the type species designation that would conserve the name Peggichisme and avoid the need to propose a new generic name. Peggichisme Kirkaldy would then become the generic name for the neotropical species assemblage distinguished from Ozophora Uhler by its sharp, narrowly explanate lateral pronotal margins, notched humeral pronotal angles, and broad, relatively declivant head with large eyes. Also by such action, Ozophora concava (Distant, 1893), as a close relative of O. picturata Uhler, 1871, would simply remain in the genus Ozophora Uhler, 1891. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 7.1 accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoolo- gical Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904, and, having done so, to designate Davila consanguineus [sic] Distant, 1893, as type species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Davila consanguineus [sic] Distant, 1893, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name consanguineus Distant, 1893, as published in the binomen Davila consanguineus [sic] _ (specific name of type species of Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BARBER, H.G. 1918. Concerning Lygaeidae — No. 2 J. New York entomol. Soc., vol. 26 (2): 49—66 BLATCHLEY, W.S. 1926. Heteroptera or true bugs of eastern North America, with special reference to the faunas of Indiana and Florida, 1116 pp. Nature Publ. Co., Indianapolis DISTANT, W.L. 1893. Insecta. Rhynchota. Hemiptera-Heteroptera, vol. 1. Biol. centr.-amer. Suppl.: 378—462. London KIRKALDY, G.W. 1904. Bibliographical and nomenclatural notes on the Hemiptera, No. 3. Entomologist vol. 37: 379—383 SCUDDER, G.G.E. 1967. Rhyparochrominae types in the British Museum (Natural History) (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). Bull. br. Mus. (nat. Hist.) (Entomol.) vol. 20 (6): 251—285 SLATER, J.A. 1964. Catalogue of the Lygaeidae of the World, 1668 pp. Univ. Connecticut, Storrs SWEET, M.H. 1967. The tribal classification of the Rhyparochrominae. Ann. entomol. Soc. Amer. vol. 60 (1): 208—226 UHLER, P.R. 1871. Notices on some Heteroptera in the collection of Dr. T.W. Harris. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. vol. 14: 93-109 VAN DUZEE, E.P. 1916. Checklist of the Hemiptera (excepting the Aphididae, Aleurodidae and Coccidae) of America north of Mexico. 113 pp. New York entomol. Soc. New York 1917. Catalogue of the Hemiptera of America north of Mexico. 902 pp. Univ. California Press, Berkeley 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LYMANTRIIDAE HAMPSON [1893] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA) PROPOSED PRECEDENCE OVER ORGYIIDAE WALLENGREN, 1861, AND DASYCHIRIDAE PACKARD, 1864. Z.N.(S) 2216 By D.S. Fletcher and I.W.B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD), and Douglas C. Ferguson (Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A., c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) The purpose of this application is to ask the Commission to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the family-group name LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893], over ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861 and DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864. 2. This family of moths consists of about 2,500 species and is world-wide in distribution. Several species are serious forest and orchard pests, notably the now holarctic Gypsy Moth, Lymantria dispar (Linnaeus); the Douglas-fir Tussock Moth, Orgyia pseudot- sugata (McDunnough), sometimes regarded as the most important forest pest in the United States; and the Brown-tail Moth, Euproctis chrysorrhoea (Linnaeus), which occurs in much of Europe and in the New England States of the U.S.A.; other species of Euproctis Hubner, [1819], defoliate castor, coffee and conifers in India and southern Africa. Several species, notably those of the genus Euproctis, are of medical interest, having barbed hairs which cause urticaria in man and can also cause eye injury by penetrating the cornea. The usage of the family-group name is therefore wide- spread throughout the world, both in technical and popular works. 3. The family was first separated under the name LARIIDAE, originally proposed as LARIAE by Newman (1832: 40, 44) and based on the genus Laria Schrank (1802: 150), a junior homonym of Laria Scopoli, 1763 — Insecta, Coleoptera. The next name esta- blished for this family was LIPARIDAE, originally proposed as LIPARIDES Boisduval (1834: 134), based on the genus Liparis Ochsenheimer (1810: 186), a junior homonym of Liparis Scopoli, 1777 — Pisces. Neither of these family-group names may be used as a valid name, the name of the type-genus in each case being a junior homonym. 4. The following names have also been established for the family: (a) ORGYIIDAE, originally proposed as ORGYIDES, was established by Wallengren (1861: 369), based on the Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 genus Orgyia Ochsenheimer (1810: 208), type species, by subsequent designation by Curtis (1831: 378), Phalaena antiqua Linnaeus (1758: 503). This is the oldest valid name for the family. (b) DASYCHIRIDAE, originally proposed as DASYCHIRAE, was established by Packard (1864: 331), based on the genus Dasychira Hubner([1809]: pl. [178]), type species by monotypy, Dasychira tephra Hiibner ([1809]: pl. [178]). (c) LYMANTRIIDAE was established by Hampson ([1893]: 432), based on the genus Lymantria Hiibner ([1819]: 160), type species, by subsequent designation by Moore ({1883]: 99), Phalaena monacha Linnaeus (1758: 501). (d) LEUCOMIDAE was established by Grote (1895: 3), based on the genus Leucoma Hubner (1822: 14, 19), type species, by subsequent designation by Westwood (1840: 92), Phalaena salicis Linnaeus (1758: 502). OCNERIIDAE, originally proposed as OCNERIADAE, was established by Meyrick (1895: 169), based on the genus Ocneria Hubner ([1819]: 158), type species, by subsequent designation by Kirby (1892: 466), Bombyx rubea [Denis & Schiffermuller] (1775: 51). (f) HYPOGYMNIDAE was established by Grote (1896: 3), based on the genus Hypogymna Billberg (1820: 84), type species, by subsequent designation by Curtis (1839: 767), Phalaena monacha Linnaeus (1758: 501). (e — 5. Of the family-group names listed in paragraphs 3 and 4, LIPARIDAE was the most widely used during the nineteenth century; ORGYIIDAE and DASYCHIRIDAE had minor usage, but neither name has been widely adopted. During the present century ORGYIIDAE was used in an important revisionary work by Kozhantchikov (1950); it was used again by Pantyukhov (1964: 94), but he reverted three years later (1967: 40) to the use of the better-known, but invalid name LIPARIDAE; it was also used by Minyailo & Minyailo (1972: 1247). The name LYMANTRIIDAE has been used many hundreds of times throughout the world during the present century, in taxonomic and faunistic works, in economic literature, in textbooks and check lists. A brief, random survey of the twentieth century literature on the shelves of the Lepidoptera Section of the British Museum (Natural History) scored the following usages: ORGYIIDAE 3, LIPARIDAE 6, LYMANTRIIDAE 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 108. In 1970—1975, Abstracts of Entomology volumes 1—6, there are 35 references to LYMANTRIIDAE, two to LIPARIDAE, one to ORGYIIDAE and none to any other of the family-group names included in paragraphs 3 and 4. To comply with Article 79 of the Code, a selection of the more important references, in which those that use LYMANTRIIDAE are marked with an asterisk, is given at the end of this paper. 6.The continued use of the name LIPARIDAE has been mainly in North American publications, but as the use of this name must be abandoned because of the homonymy of its type-genus, it is important that the replacement name adopted should be that in general use throughout the rest of the world. The evidence of the world-wide use of the family-group name LYMANTRIIDAE is over- whelming, and the interests of nomenclatural stability will best be served by its conservation. 7. The Commission is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers torule that the family-group name LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893], is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the family- group names ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861, and DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864, when applied to the same biological taxon, at any level in the family group; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] (type- genus Lymantria Hubner, [1819]) with an endorsement that, as ruled in (1) above, it is to be given precedence over ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861, and over DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864, when applied to the same biological taxon, at any level in the family group; (b) ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861 (type genus Orgyia Ochsenheimer, 1810) with an endorsement that, as ruled in (1) above, it is not to be used in place of LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893], when applied to the same biological taxon, at any level in the family group; (c) DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864 (type genus Dasychira Hiibner, [1809]) with an endorsement that, as ruled in (1) above, it is not to be used in place of LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893], (3) (4) (5) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 when applied to the same biological taxon, at any level in the family group; to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Lymantria Hiibner, [1819] (the name of the type genus of the family LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893]) (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Moore, [1883], Phalaena monacha Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Orgyia Ochsenheimer, 1810 (the name of the type genus of the family ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861) (gender: feminine), type species, by subse- quent designation by Curtis, 1831, Phalaena antiqua Linnaeus, 1758; (c) Dasychira Hubner, [1809] (the name of the type genus of the family DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864) (gender: feminine), type species, by mono- typy, Dasychira tephra Hubner, [1809]; to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) monacha Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Phalaena (Bombyx) monacha (speci- fic name of the type species of Lymantria Hiibner, [1819]); (b) antiqua Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Phalaena (Bombyx) antiqua (specific name of the type species of Orgyia Ochsenheimer, 1810); (c) tephra Hubner, [1809], as published in the bino- men Dasychira tephra Hibner, (specific name of the type species of Dasychira Hiibner, [1809]); to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoo- logy: (a) LARIIDAE Newman, 1832, originally proposed as LARIAE (a name based on Laria Schrank, 1802, a primary homonym of Laria Scopoli, 1763 — Insecta, Coleoptera); (b) LIPARIDAE Boisduval, 1834, originally proposed 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as LIPARIDES (a name based on Liparis Ochsen- heimer, 1810, a primary homonym of Liparis Scopoli, 1777 — Pisces). (6) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Laria Schrank, 1802, a primary homonym of Laria Scopoli, 1763; (b) Liparis Ochsenheimer, 1810, a primary homonym of Liparis Scopoli, 1777. 8. This application is also supported by Dr. L. Vari (Transvaal Museum, Paul Kruger Street, Pretoria, South Africa), and by Dr. P. Viette (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 Rue de Buffon, Paris, France). REFERENCES *BARNES, W. & McDUNNOUGH, J. 1917. Check List Lepid. boreal Amer. 392 pp. Illinois. (Lymantriidae pp. 96—97). *BERGMANN, A. 1953. Die Gross-Schmett. Mitteldtl. vol. 3. xii + 552 pp., 98 text-figs., 48 pls., 5 col. pls. Jena. (Lymantriidae pp. 186—218). *BIEZANKO, C.M. & OTHERS. 1962. Lepidoptera del Uruguay. Revta Fac. Agron. Univ. Repub. Uruguay vol. 50: 1—166. Montevideo. (Lymantrii- dae p. 82). BILLBERG, J.C. 1820. Enumeratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg. iv. + 138 pp. Stockholm. BOISDUVAL, J.A. 1834. Icon. hist. Lepid. nouv. ou peu connus vol. 2, 208 pp., 37 col. pls. Paris. (Liparidae pp. 134—152, pls. 61, 62, 65). *BRYK, F. 1934. Jn Strand, Lepid. Cat. vol. 62. 441 pp. Berlin. *COMMON, I.F.B. 1970. Jn Mackerras, I.M., Insects of Australia. viii + 1029 pp., text-figs., 9 col. pls. Melbourne. (Lymantriidae pp. 860-861). *COSTA LIMA, A.Da. 1949. Insetos do Brasil vol. 6 (Lepid. 2). 420 pp., 331 text-figs. Rio de Janeiro. (Lymantriidae pp. 163—169, text-figs. 127— 131). *CURRAN, C.H. 1945. Insects of the Pacific World. xv + 317 pp. 97 text-figs. New York. (Lymantriidae pp. 131—132). CURTIS, J. 1831. Br. Ent. vol. 8. Plates 338—385 + unpaged text and index. London. DENIS, J.N.C.M. & SCHIFFERMULLER, I. 1775. Ankiindung syst. Werkes Schmett. Wienergegend. 323 pp., 2 pls. Vienna. *DRAUDT, M. & SCHAUS, W. 1913—1940. In Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde vol. 6 (American Fauna). viii + 1452 pp., 185 col. pls. Stuttgart. (Lymantrii- dae, 1927, pp. 535—564, pls. 72—75). *EECKE, R. van. 1930. De Heterocera van Sumatra. xviii + 456 pp., text-figs., 13 col. pls. Leiden. (Lymantriidae pp. 228—295). *ESSIG, E.O. 1958. Insects & Mites of Western North America (Revised Edn). xiv + 1050 pp., 766 text-figs. New York. (Lymantriidae pp. 692—695, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 figs. 569-572). *FORBES, W.T.M. 1948. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring States (2). Mem. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn vol. 274. 263 pp., 255 text-figs. New York. (Lymantriidae pp. 237—246, text-figs. 251—255). *FORSTER, W & WOHLFAHRT, T.A. 1956—1960. Schmett. Mitteleur. vol. 3. viii + 239 pp., 92 text-figs., 8 pls., 28 col. pls. Stuttgart. (Lymantriidae pp. 7—16, text-figs. 3—7, col. pls. 1, 2). *GAEDE, M. 1930-1934. In Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde vol. 2, Suppl. (Palae- arctic Fauna). viilit 316 pp., 16 col. pls. Stuttgart. (Lymantriidae, 1932, pp. 95—106, pl. 8). GROTE, A.R. 1895. Systema Lepid. Hildesiae, Mitt. Roemermus. Hildesh. vol. 1: 1—3. —____ 1896. System. nordamer. Schmett. Mitt. Roemermus. Hildesh. vol. 7: 1—4. HAMPSON, G. [1893] 1892. Fauna Br. India (Moths) vol. 1. xxiv + 527 pp., 333 text-figs. London, Calcutta, Bombay, Berlin. (Lymantriidae pp. 432—494, text-figs. 300—328). *HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1976. Moths of Borneo. 264 pp., 727 + 383 figs. Kuala _, Lumpur. (Lymantriidae, pp. 43—S52, figs.). HUBNER, J. [1809] 1806—[1832]. Sammi. exot. Schmett. vol. 1. 36 pp. + index. 213 col. pls. Augsburg. ——__[1819] 1816. Verz. bekannter Schmett. (9)—(11). pp. 129-176. Augsburg. ——_— 1822. Syst.-alphab. Verz. vit 81 pp. Augsburg. *IMMS, A.D. 1970. A General Textbook of Entomology (Edn 9). 886 pp., 609 text-figs. London, New York. (Lymantriidae, pp. 567—568). *JANSE, A.J.T. 1917. Check-List S. Afr. Lepid. Heterocera. 219 + xii pp. Pretoria. (Lymantriidae pp. 66—73). KIRBY, W.F. 1892. Synonymic Cat. Lepid. Heterocera. vol. 1. 951 pp. London. KOZHANTCHIKOV, I.V. 1950. Fauna S.S.S.R. Insecta Lepid. vol. 12, 582 pp., 296 text-figs. Moscow. *LEMPKE, B.J. 1953—1970. Cat. Nederland. Macrolepid. Suppl. 1266 pp., 92 text-figs., plates. Tijdschr. Ent. vols. 96—113.(Lymantriidae, 1959, vol. 102: 114—134, pls. 12—14). LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Syst. Nat. (Edn 10) vol. 1. 824 pp. Uppsala. *MERZHEEVSKAY, O.I. 1976. Cat. Lepid. Belorussia. 132 pp. Minsk. (Lymantriidae pp. 78, 79). MEYRICK, E. 1895. A Handbook of Br. Lepid. viii + 843 pp. London, New York. MINYAILO, V.A. & MINYAILO, A.K. 1972. Female sex pheromones as a means of reproductive isolation in three species of the genus Euproctis (Lepidoptera, Orgyidae). Zool. Zh. vol. 51(8): 1247-1248. MOORE, F. [1883]. 1882—1883. Lepid. Ceylon vol. 2. viii + 162 pp., pls. 72—143. London. NEWMAN, E. 1832. Sphinx vespiformis: an essay. 54 pp., 3 figs. London. *NORDSTROM, F & WAHLGREN, E. [1935]—1941. Svenska Fjarilar. iv + 354 pp., 369 text-figs., | map. 50 col. pls. Stockholm. (Lymantriidae pp. 63—68, pls. 13, 14). 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OCHSENHEIMER, F. 1810. Schmett. Eur. vol. 3. viii + 360 pp. Leipzig. PANTYUKHOV, G.A. 1964. The effect of negative temperatures on popu- lations of the brown-tail moth Euproctis chrysorrhoea L. and the gypsy moth Lymantria dispar L. (Lepidoptera, Orgyidae). Ent. Obozr. vol. 43: 94-111, 13 text-figs., 7 tables. —____1967. The influence of the feeding regime upon the physiological state of Euproctis chrysorrhoea L. (Lepidoptera, Liparidae). Ent. Obozr. vol. 46: 40—48, 10 tables. PACKARD, A.S. 1864. Synopsis of the BOMBYCIDAE of the United States (2). Proc. ent. Soc. Phil. vol. 3: 331—394. *PINHEY, E.C.G. 1975. Moths of southern Africa. 273 pp., 18 text-figs., 63 col. pls. Cape Town. (Lymantriidae pp. 172—180, pls. 44, 46, 47, 49). SCHRANK, F. von P. von. 1802. Fauna Boica vol. 2(2). 412 pp. Nirnberg. *SEITZ, A. & HERING, M. 1926—1930. Jn Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde vol. 14 (Ethiopian Fauna). 599 pp., 80 col. pls. Stuttgart. (Lymantriidae, 1926—1927, pp. 127—204, pls. 19—28). *SEITZ, A. & STRAND, E. 1907—1933. Jn Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde vol. 10 (Indo-Australian Fauna). iv + 909 pp., 104 col. pls. Stuttgart. (Lyman- triidae 1915—1923, pp. 291—387, pls. 38—47). *STRAND, E. 1906-1912. In Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde vol. 2 (Palaearctic Fauna). 479 pp., 56 col. pls. Stuttgart. (Lymantriidae, 1910, pp. 109— 141, pls. 19—23). *TULESHKOV, K. 1958. Lepidoptera of Bulgaria. 344 pp., 543 figs. Sofia. (Lymantriidae pp. 125—130, figs. 148—153). WALLENGREN, H.D.J. 1861. K. svenska Fregatten Eugenies Resa... C.A. Virgin aren 1851—1853 (Zool.) vol. 1 (10, Lepidoptera): 351—390, pls. 6, 7. Stockholm. WESTWOOD, J.O. 1840. Introd. mod. Classif. Insects vol. 2 (Synopsis Genera Br. Insects). 158 pp. London. LYMANTRIIDAE HAMPSON, [1893] (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PRECEDENCE OVER ORGYIIDAE WALLENGREN, 1861, AND DASYCHIRIDAE PACKARD, 1864. Z.N.(S) 2216 (1) By I.F.B. Common (Division of Entomology, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra, Australia) I support wholeheartedly the application by Fletcher, Nye and Ferguson for the Commission to exercise its plenary powers to give nomen- clatural precedence to the family-group name LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] over the family-group names ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861 and DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864. They have presented a compelling and well documented case for this proposal. To their impressive list of references, in which the name LYMANTRII- DAE has been used, could be added the Zoological Record in which the name has been used consistently since 1924. Previously in this journal members of the family were included in the BOMBYCIDAE (1864-68), in the LIPARIDAE Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 (1869—91 and 1922—23), and inthe Bombyces s./. (1892—1921). In Australian entomological literature the name LIPARIDAE was widely used until 1924 (e.g. Turner, 1920), when Turner began using the name LYMANTRIADAE [sic], having been informed that the generic name Liparis Ochsenheimer, 1810 was a homonym of Liparis Scopoli, 1777 (Turner, 1924). Since then the name LYMANTRIIDAE has been used consistently in the Australian literature, inclu- ding Tillyard (1926), McKeown (1942), Turner (1946) and Common (1970). Entomologists in Australia would therefore welcome action by the Commission in granting the proposed conservation of this family-group name. REFERENCES COMMON, I.F.B. 1970. Lepidoptera (Moths and Butterflies). In The Insects of Australia, 765—866. Melbourne. 1029 pp. McKEOWN, K.C. 1942. Australian Insects. An Introductory Handbook. Sydney. Royal Zool. Soc. N.S.W. 304 pp. TILLYARD, R.J. 1926. The Insects of Australia and New Zealand. Sydney. 560 pp. TURNER, A.J. 1920. Revision of Australian Lepidoptera — Liparidae. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. vol. 45: 474-499. 1924. Revision of Australian Lepidoptera — Lasiocampidae. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. vol. 49: 397—428. 1946. A review of the phylogeny and classification of the Lepidoptera. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. vol. 71: 303—338. (2) By U. Dall’Asta (Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) For over fifty years all authors dealing with African representatives of this family have used the family-group name LYMANTRIIDAE, therefore I wholly support the proposal that this name should have precedence over ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861, and DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864. (3) By G. Ebert (Landessammlungen fiir Naturkunde, D 75 Karlsruhe 1, Erbprinzenstrasse 13, B.R.D.) In the interests of a desirable progress towards stability in nomenclature, the name LYMANTRIIDAE Hampson, [1893] , almost universally used in twentieth century applied and special literature, should in future have precedence over the earlier but little used names ORGYIIDAE Wallengren, 1861, and DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864. (4) By H. Inoue (Biological Laboratory, Otsuma Woman’s University, Tokyo, Japan) It is my great pleasure to support the proposal from the viewpoint of 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature popularity of the name LYMANTRIIDAE in Japan, both by professional and amateur entomologists. In our country in most influential publications, such as Check List of the Lepidoptera of Japan vol. 4 (1956), Icones Heterocerorum Japonicorum in Coloribus Naturalibus vol. 1 (1957) and vol. 2 (1959), Icono- graphia Insectorum Japonicorum Colore Naturali Edita (1959), Early Stages of Japanese Moths in Colour vol. | (1965), the family nnme LYMANTRIIDAE is accepted. At present LYMANTRIIDAE is used by systematic, agricultural, forestry and medical entomologists in our country with no exception. Change of the family name to LIPARIDAE, ORGYIIDAE, or others would be undesir- able from the practical viewpoint. Therefore, I believe that the action for conservation and stabilization of the family name LYMANTRIIDAE is a timely one for the development of entomology. (5) By E.C.G. Pinhey (National Museum, Bulawayo, Rhodesia) This family contains some species of economic significance in many countries through damage inflicted by the larvae on timber and shade trees, and sometimes to orchards; for this reason alone it is important to have the family-group name stabilised. The overwhelming usage of the name LYMAN- TRIIDAE in preference to the alternatives is readily seen from the literature on the family over the years since 1893 when Hampson established this name. I should welcome action by the Commission to conserve this family-group name. (6) By J.C.E. Riotte (Bernice P. Bishop Museum, P.O. Box 6037, Honolulu, Hawaii 96818) I have read carefully the application submitted by Fletcher, Nye and Ferguson and having myself published a number of papers concerning species of the family LYMANTRIIDAE, I should like to fully support their application. Taking into consideration that lepidopterists have tried for quite a considerable time to rid the literature of the preoccupied name LIPARIDAE (which, however, is still used by some workers), one can imagine the confusion that would result if strict priority were applied in this case. As has been rightly pointed out by the applicants, the name LYMAN- TRIIDAE is widespread throughout the world, not only in taxonomic literature, but also in many medical and popular publications. To change the name of this family would serve no useful purpose, except to satisfy a narrow juridical view, which in this case should be put to rest once and for all. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 HARMINIUS FAIRMAIRE, 1852 (COLEOPTERA); PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S)2264 By Edward C. Becker (Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1H 0C6) The purpose of this paper is to preserve the generic name Harminius Fairmaire, 1852, in the sense in which it has generally been used since 1875 (Bonvouloir, Ann. Soc. ent. France (4) vol. suppl., 907 pp.). Fairmaire, 1852 Ann. Soc. ent. France (2), vol. 80—81) described the new genus Harminius with the new species H. castaneus from Sicily as the type species by monotypy. He placed the genus in the EUCNEMIDAE, but all subsequent authors since Bonvouloir have placed it in the ELATERIDAE. 2. Fairmaire’s type material appears to be lost. Miss C.M.F. von Hayek (British Museum (Natural History), London) tells me that she cannot find it in the Fairmaire, Candéze, Fleutiaux and Oberthir collections at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, or in the Candéze collection at the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles in Brussels. H. castaneus can thus only properly be treated as a species incertae sedis, since Fairmaire’s original description and figure do not show whether he was describing an eucnemid or an elaterid. 3. The species from southern Italy and Sicily that is commonly called Harminius castaneus (commonly with Athous spiniger Candéze, 1860, Mem. Soc. r. Sci. Liége, vol. 15: 460—461 as a synonym) is very distinctive and cannot be confused with any other species except Athous florentinus Desbrochers, 1870 (l’Abeille, vol. 7: 114) from northern Italy. Neither of these bears any resemblance to the original description of H. castaneus Fairmaire, a beetle with a parellel-sided prothorax and a rounded head. I know of no species of Athous or related genera with these characters (see Becker, 1978, Canadian Entomol. vol. 111 (5): 561 —568 for more details). 4. Fiori, 1898, Atti Soc. Nat. Modena (3) vol. 16: 162, either overlooked or ignored Fairmaire’s Harminius when he descri- bed Pseudocorymbites as a subgenus of Athous. He included only one valid species, ‘Athous castaneus Fair.’, with A. spiniger Candéze, 1860, as a subspecies and A. florentinus Desbrochers, 1870 as a synonym of A. spiniger. Even though Fiori (and other Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature authors) misidentified Harminius castaneus, Pseudocorymbites is still a synonym of Harminius because both have the same type species (Articles 67j and 70). 5. I suggest that Athous spiniger Candéze be designated as the type species of Harminius and Pseudocorymbites rather than Harminius castaneus for the following reasons: (a) the type of castaneus cannot be located, but it cannot in any case belong to the species commonly called by this name; (b) the syntypes of spiniger are available and leave no doubt as to the identity of the species; (c) the name Harminius has been used for a subgenus of Athous or for a genus consistently for over 100 years for castaneus auctorum (non Fairmaire), spiniger, florentinus, SiGe (d) if the types of Harminius castaneus are located, then a new generic name will be needed for spiniger and its allies. 6.In order to provide maximum stability of nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby requested (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genera Harminius Fairmaire, 1852, and Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898, and to designate A thous spiniger Candéze, 1860 as type species of both genera; (2) to place the generic name Harminius Fairmaire, 1852 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, A thous spiniger Candéze, 1860, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name spiniger Candéze, 1860, as published in the binomen Athous spiniger (specific name of type species of Harminius Fairmaire, 1852 and Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898 (a junior objective synonym of Harminius Fairmaire, 1852 by reason of the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5] ACMAEA LIMATULA CARPENTER, 1864 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2268 By David R. Lindberg (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A.) The purpose of this application is to request suppression of a species-group name which has not been applied to the appropriate species for over 110 years, and which as a senior synonym would replace a well established name. Since its original description, the only citation of the name has been as a junior synonym. Although this name was a secondary homonym for approximately 100 years, this issue was not addressed by workers; the two species are no longer considered congeneric. Application is here made to the Commission to suppress the specific name as a senior synonym unused except as a junior synonym. The facts of the case are as follows:— 2. Rathke, 1833 (Zool. Atlas .... Part 5. Berlin: 18), estab- lished Acmaea mammillata. This species-group name was recognized by workers Philippi, 1846 (Z. f Malacol.: 107), Carpenter, 1857 (Rep. br. Assoc. Adv. Sci. vol. 1856: 173) and Dall, 1871 (Am. J. Conchol. vol. 6: 241), as a junior synonym of Acmaea mitra Rathke, 1833. 3. Reeve, 1855 (Conch. Icon. vol. 8: Species 119 and 140), established the names Patella scabra and Patella mamillata for another acmaeid species (both names applying to the same species). Because of page priority Patella scabra was accepted in general usage and Patella mamillata was considered a junior synonym of the former (Carpenter, 1864, Rept. br. Assoc. Ady. Sci. for 1863: 527; 1866, Am. J. Conchol. vol. 2: 345). Dall, 1914 (Nautilus vol. 28: 14), pointed out. that Patella scabra Gould, 1846, was the valid name for the acmaeid species which had been previously known as spectrum Reeve, 1855, and that primary homonymy existed between Patella scabra Reeve, 1855, and Patella scabra Gould, 1846. Dall rejected the junior name, Patella scabra Reeve, and replaced it with what he believed to be the earliest synonym, Acmaea limatula Carpenter, 1864 (Rep. br. Assoc. Adv. Sci. for 1863: 650). However, the earliest available name for this taxon is Patella mamillata Reeve, which at that point should have been rejected as a junior secondary homonym (Acmaea mammillata Rathke, 1833, vs. Acmaea mamillata (Reeve, 1855) under the Code, Article 59b). Dall did not discuss this name and there is no indica- tion that he was aware of its existence or significance. Acmaea Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 a2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature mammillata Rathke and Acmaea limatula Carpenter are no longer considered to be congeneric. The latter has been rightfully trans- ferred to the genus Collisella Dall, 1871 by McLean, 1969 (Los Angeles Co. Mus. Natl. Hist., Sci. Ser. vol. 24, Zool. No. 11: 16). 4. The species-group name Acmaea (or Collisella) limatula enjoys wide acceptance in the molluscan literature. Usage includes: Grant and Gale, 1931 (Mem. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. vol. 1: 810); Keep and Baily, 1935 (West Coast Shells, Stanford: 175); Abbott, 1954 (Amer. Seashells, Princeton: 102); Abbott, 1974 (Amer. Seashells, New York: 31); McLean, 1978 (Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., Sci. Ser. vol. 24: 16); Light & Others, 1954 Untertidal Invertebrates of the Central California Coast, Berkeley: 248); Carlton & Roth, 1975 (Phylum Mollusca: Shelled Gastropods, in R.I. Smith & J.T. Carlton, Light’s Manual, Berkeley: 480); Ricketts & Calvin, 1968 (Between Pacific Tides, Stanford: 46); Test, 1945 (Ecol. vol. 26: 397); Test, 1946 (Univ. Michigan Contrib. Lab. Vert. Biol. vol. 31: 13). References to the species have also been made in over 35 additional publications. 5. During the 98 years that secondary homonymy existed between Acmaea mammillata Rathke, 1833, and Patella mamillata Reeve, 1855, the species-group name mamillata Reeve was never rejected as a homonym and was also never used as a valid name of a taxon. I submit that this is a prima facie case of an unused senior synonym threatening a name in current general usage according to Article 79b and subsections (i) and (ii) (Bull. Zool. Nom. vol. 31: 87—88). Therefore the Commission is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name mamillata Reeve, 1855, as published in the binomen Patella mamillata, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name limatula Carpenter, 1864, as published in the binomen Acmaea limatula, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name mamillata Reeve, 1855, as 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 RAFINESQUE, 1822, “ON THE TURTLES OF THE UNITED STATES” (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS. ZNAS.): 2289 By Hobart M. Smith, David Chiszar and Rozella B. Smith (Departments of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology (HMS, RBS) and Psychology (DC), University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 80309, U.S.A.) In a seldom-noted article appearing in 1822 in a newspaper, Rafinesque listed the names of 12 “‘new species’ of turtles, only one of which (Monoclida kentukensis) has ever been cited (apparently first by Schmidt, 1953: 94). As a junior synonym of Terrapene carolina (Linnaeus, 1758), that name has posed no problem and is not likely to do so in the future. Nine of the other names are Clearly either nomina dubia or nomina nuda, and there- fore are either not identifiable or not nomenclaturally available. The two others, never cited since their first appearance, are nomen- claturally available and sufficiently characterized as to be identi- fiable. Those two names (Trionyx nasica Rafinesque, 1822, and Trionyx pusilla Rafinesque, 1822) unfortunately antedate two others that have long been accepted as valid for their species (Trionyx spiniferus (LeSueur, 1827) and Trionyx muticus (LeSueur, 1827), respectively). As well used names, having been universally accepted in hundreds of works for over 100 years, the latter two names are actually not threatened by Rafinesque’s nomina oblita, since application of the Law of Priority would obviously ‘“‘disturb stability or universality or cause confusion” (Art. 23 a—b of the Amended Code) — indeed, it would do all three. The Amended Code requires maintenance of existing usage and referral of the case to the Commission for a decision under the plenary powers. 2. Rafinesque’s article is here reproduced in full, with our annotations in brackets. ‘For the Kentucky Gazette. ‘The Cosmonist — No. XII. ‘Within their shells the sluggish Turtles live. They crawl or swim; affording luscious food. ‘On the Turtles of the United States. ‘The turtles, often called by the Indian name of Tarapen in the United States, are a peculiar kind of harmless Reptiles, which afford delicious food, and their shells pretty ornaments. ‘Linnaeus only knew eight species of turtles from the Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature United States, many new species were described by Schuepf [=Schoepff], Rose [=Bosc], Bartram, Lenieur [=LeSueur], etc. and I have myself discovered twelve new species: the total number now known is therefore increased to thirty-five. ‘Among these there are six species of Sea Turtles and eight Land Turtles. All the others are amphibious, living commonly in the freshwater, but often creeping on land. ‘I have called as follows my new species: . Trionyx nasica, Long-nose soft-shell Turtle. Trionyx pusilla, Dwarf soft-shell Turtle. . Emyda pugnax, Fighting Tarapen. Emyda morstans, Biting Tarapen. . Emyda megalonyx, Long-claw Tarapen. . Emyda Striata, Striped Tarapen. Emyda Semiradiata, Radiating Tarapen. . Emyda nodosa, Knobby Tarapen. . Emyda granularis, Granulated Tarapen. . Monoclida Kentukensis, Kentucky Box Turtle. . Lepidemy [sic] bifida, Bifid Tarapen. . Didicla erythrops, Red-eye Tarapen. ‘I wrote in 1819 a Monography of these, and remarks on all the Turtles of the U. States, which was sent to the Ameri- can Journal of Science, but not published: it has been since sent to Europe and published there. [If so it is unknown; we doubt the statement. ] ‘The most important of these Turtles is the Long-nose Great Soft Shell, so common all over the western streams, and which reaches sometimes the weight of fifty pounds. It had been blended [i.e., confused] with the ferocious Turtle of the Southern States (Tertudo [sic] ferox) from which it is quite different. I was the first to ascertain that it belongs to the genus Trionyx of Geoffroy, to describe it and draw it correctly. ‘I will conclude by describing one of my new [column 4] species No. 10, found in Kentucky and called the Kentucky Box Turtle. It belongs to the genus Monoclida or Turtle with lower shell shutting like a box. It has some affinity with the Carolina Box Turtle, but is yet very different. ‘Upper shell 6 inches long, 4 broad, and 2 high; almost elliptical, very convex, deeply notched in front, slightly serrated and flattened behind, blackish with some yellow irregular spots. 13 central scales, the first and third with a flat ridge, 25 marginal scales, all the scales slightly striated in concentric waved small wrinkles. Lower shell 5 inches long, 3 broad, elliptical, blachish [sic] entire, concave behind, NK OOWDIADMAHRWYN— —t ph pee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 shutting before, with 13 smooth scales. ‘Head black with yellow dots, neck yellow with black dots, whitish beneath, cheeks flat, jaws horny entire; neck without scales, but flat horny warts. ‘Limbs scaly, tail very short, forefeet yellow with black spots, 5 brown claws, toes united. Hind feet brownish above, pale beneath, four claws, toes soldered. C.S. Rafinesque’. 3. The ‘Long-nose Great Soft Shell’, 7rionyx nasica Rafines- que, is clearly Trionyx spiniferus (LeSueur, 1827), and the ‘Dwarf soft-shell Turtle’, Trionyx pusilla Rafinesque, is clearly Trionyx muticus (LeSueur, 1827). The characterizations, though brief, suffice to make the names available and to identify the species named. Monoclida kentukensis Rafinesque is amply characterized to justify acceptance as nomenclaturally available as well as referral to synonymy with Terrapene carolina carolina (Linnaeus, 1758). The nine other names are certainly unidentifiable, for the common names applied to them are either ambiguous or unintelligible. How- ever, since the common names do provide some information, how- ever minuscule and useless for identification, their associated scienti- fic names might be construed as nomina dubia rather than nomina nuda, in which case they would be accepted as nomenclaturally available, although unidentifiable. This conclusion is consistent with acceptance of Trionyx pusilla as available, on no more information than common name; the distinction is that the common name for pusilla provides a diagnostic character that makes the species identi- fiable, whereas that is not the case for the others. Yet the amount of information is the same for all, and if one name can be regarded as thereby nomenclaturally available, all should be. 4.The most recent monograph of soft-shelled turtles of North America (Webb, 1962) does not mention either of Rafines- que’s names in Trionyx, and they are not cited in his later reviews (1973a—d) of the same species. The most recent taxonomic review of the turtles of the world (Wermuth & Mertens, 1977) mentions only Monoclida kentukensis. The omission of Rafinesque’s names is not a matter of exclusion of nomina nuda or nomina dubia, since all others known to these authors were cited. 5. Because of the ambiguity of status of all names (except Monoclida kentukensis) published in Rafinesque’s account, it seems best to request that the entire work be suppressed for nomen- clatural purposes. The one unambiguous name is of no conceivable utility in the future, and therefore no exception to preserve it alone is justified. It should, however, be pointed out that Monoclida was proposed anew by Rafinesque, 1832: 64, in which work he cited only Testudo retziana (nomen novum for Testudo retzii Daudin, 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1802, = Kinosternon scorpioides scorpioides (Linnaeus, 1766)) for the genus. As for 1832, therefore, Monoclida Rafinesque is an avail- able nominal genus, and a junior synonym of Kinosternon Spix, 1824. 6. The ambiguity of status of Rafinesque’s 1822 account is not only internal, however; it extends to the context of Art. 8 (2) of the Code, which requires that ‘a work when first issued must ..... be issued for the purpose of scientific, public, permanent record ...’ The work was certainly a public record, but it was clearly not in- tended to be permanent, and few would construe it as scientific, though Rafinesque might have done so, since that newspaper, at that time, was noted for its scholarly essays. Few other outlets for such material then existed. 7. All factors considered, the simplest alternative to an other- wise potentially complex, lengthy and unrewarding consideration of the merits, status and identity of each of these 12 names is to declare the entire work unavailable for nomenclatural purposes. 8. We accordingly request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatural purposes the work by C.S. Rafinesque, 1822 entitled “On the Turtles of the United States’ as published in the Kentucky Gazette (n.s. 1) vol. 36 (no. 21, May 23): 3 cols. 3—4 and to rule that no name acquires the status of availability by reason of having been published therein; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature the work by Rafinesque, 1822 rejected by use of the plenary powers in (1) above. REFERENCES RAFINESQUE, C.S., 1822. On the turtles of the United States. Kentucky Gazette, (n.s. 1) 36 (no. 21, May 23): 3, cols. 3—4. —_____ 1832. Atlantic J. and Friend of Knowledge, vol. 1: 64—65. SCHMIDT, K.P. 1953. check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. Chicago, Univ. Chicago Press. viii, 280 pp. WEBB, R.G., 1962. North American Recent soft shelled turtles (Family Triony- chidae). Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 13 (10): 429—611, figs. 1 — 24, pls. 31 — 54. 1973a. Trionyx ater. Cat. Am. Amph. Rept., 137: 1, map. 1973b. Trionyx ferox. Ibid., 138: 1—3, map. 1973c. Trionyx muticus. Ibid., 139: 1—2, map. —_____ 1973d. Trionyx spiniferus. Ibid., 140: 1—4, map. WERMUTH, H. & MERTENS, R., 1977. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Das Tierreich, vol. 100: i—xxvii, 1—74. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 CHR YSOLINA MOTSCHULSKY, 1860 (INSECTA: COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S) 2291 by Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum of the University, Helsingfors, Finland) In this application it is proposed that the generally used generic name Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860, in the CHRYSO- MELIDAE, be granted nomenclatural precedence over its unused senior synonym Atfechna Chevrolat, 1837. 2. The genus Chrysomela was described by Linnaeus, 1758: 368, with alarge number of species. Latreille (1810: 432) designated Chrysomela populi Linnaeus, 1758: 370, as its type species. 3.The genus Melasoma was described by Stephens, 1831: 349. Westwood (1838: 43) designated Chrysomela populi Linnaeus, 1758: 370, as its type species. Melasoma is accordingly a junior objective synonym of Chrysomela. 4. The genus Atechna was established by Chevrolat,in Dejean, 1837: 427, to include 19 species, all but one of which were from South Africa. Most of the names included were nomina nuda, but at least the following five were available: Chrysomela guttata Fabricius, 1792: 313; Chrysomela quatuordecimguttata Fabricius, 1798: 85; Chrysomela vulpina Fabricius, 1781: 122; Chrysomela alternans Fabricius, 1794: 447; and Chrysomela striata Fabricius, 1781: 122. Atechna was used again a few years later by Duponchel & Chevrolat (in d’Orbigny, 1842: 282). As far as I know, no type species has been designated. 5. The genus Polysticta was described by Hope, 1840: 164, who designated Chrysomela guttata Fabricius as its type species. However, Polysticta Hope is a junior homonym of Polysticta Eyton, 1836 (Aves). 6. Stephens, Chevrolat and others used the name Chrysomela for the large genus including, for instance, Chrysomela goettingensis Linnaeus, 1761 (non Linnaeus, 1758) and C. graminis Linnaeus, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1758. Hope (1840) ignored Latreille’s designation and cited C. goettingensis as the type species. Thomson (1859) also ignored Latreille and designated C. graminis. The generic name Chrysomela was used for a long time based on graminis. 7. Motschulsky (1860) dismembered the genus Chrysomela auct. restricting the name Chrysomela to a small group of species with C. graminis as type. From the old Chrysomela auct. he des- cribed 23 new genera, one of them being Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860: 210, with Chrysomela staphylaea Linnaeus, 1758: 370, as type species. Motschulsky’s action was overwhelmingly ignored by his contemporaries, and his names were not even used as subgenera until much later. 8. Maulik (1925) rediscovered Latreille’s designation. He then chose Chrysolina to be the name for Chrysomela auct. According to Maulik the genus Atechna comprised the South African species and differed from Chrysolina. Later Maulik (1926) used the generic names in the corrected sense. 9. Maulik’s discovery did not result in an immediate accep- tance. Chrysomela in its customary sense was firmly entrenched, but gradually the correct use increased with works by Chen (1934), Van Dyke (1938) and Bechyné (1946). Four years later Bechyné (1950) in his large work on Chrysolina brought the matter to general attention, and nowadays Chrysolina is widely used, e.g. Kontkanen (1959), Chen (1961), Arnett (1962), Brown (1962), Jolivet (1966), Takizawa (1970), Daccordi & Ruffo (1975), Medvedev & Voronova (1976), Lopatin (1977) and Pope (1977). Nevertheless others have persisted in the incorrect use of Chrysomela for this genus. Also Bechyné (1958) suggested that Chrysolina should be united with Oreina Chevrolat, 1837 (type species Chrysomela tristis Fabricius, 1792, designated by Motschulsky, 1860), and Gressitt & Kimoto (1963a) first agreed with that view, but a little later reconsidered and used Chrysolina as a separate genus (Gressitt & Kimoto, 1963b) 10. Bechyné (1950) treated Polysticta Hope, 1840, as a sub- genus of Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860, although Polysticta was senior by 20 years. He did not name the species included, but stated that all South African species belonged here. Ferreira (1967) also listed Polysticta as a subgenus of Chrysolina, but because it was a junior homonym Polysticta Hope should not have been used by either author. 11. Atechna has not been used in any systematic work as a valid generic name. Nevertheless it is available, and as the five species listed in paragraph 4 were all implicitly included in Polysticta by Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 Bechyné, then Atechna should be used as its replacement name. A type species must still be fixed, so I here designate Chrysomela vulpina Fabricius, 1781. 1.2. Atechna is senior to Chrysolina by 23 years and currently the type species are included in’ the same genus. Accordingly Chrysolina should be reduced to a synonym, and this large genus containing several hundred species, most of them palaearctic, should be known as Atechna. The use of the name would, however, be dependent on the status given to the South African group. Chrysolina is a well known name in ever increasing use, its only other competition coming from an incorrect use of Chrysomela, while Atechna has not been used even as a subgeneric name until recently (Daccordi, 1976, 1978). To substitute Chrysolina with Atechna would not be in the interest of stability. 13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to give Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860, nomenclatural precedence over Atechna Chevrolat, 1837; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Chrysomela Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species designated -by Latreille (1810: 432), Chrysomela populi Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation, Chrysomela staphylaea Linnaeus, 1758, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Atechna Chevrolat, 1837, whenever the two names are regarded as syno- nyms; (c) Atechna Chevrolat, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species by present designation, Chrysomela vulpina Fabricius, 1781, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860, whenever the two names are regarded as syno- nyms; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) populi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chrysomela populi (specific name of the type species of Chrysomela Linnaeus, 1758); (b) staphylaea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the bino- 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature men Chrysomela staphylaea (specific name of the type species of Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860); (c) vulpina Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Chrysomela vulpina (specific name of the type species of Atechna Chevrolat, 1837). REFERENCES ARNETT, R,H., 1962. The beetles of the United States. (6): 851-1112. Washington, D.C. BECHYNE, J., 1946. Nomenklatorické a faunisticke poznamky k nékterym druhum rodu Chrysolina Motsch. Notulae synonymicae et faunisticae specierum nonnullarum generis Chrysolina Motsch. (Col. Phytoph. Chrysomelidae). Entomol. Listy vol. 9: 105-112. 1950. 7© contribution 4 la connaissance du genre Chrysolina Motsch. (Col. Phytophaga Chrysomelidae). Entomol. Arb. Mus. Frey vol. 1: 47-185. 1958. Uber die taxonomische Valenz der Namen von Oreina s.str. (Col. Phytophaga). Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol. Ges. vol. 31: 79-95. BROWN, W.J., 1962. The American species of Chrysolina Mots. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Canad. Entomol. vol. 94: 58-74. CHEN, S.H., 1934. Recherches sur les Chrysomelinae de la Chine et du Tonkin. Paris, 1-104. (preprint of Ann. Soc. Entomol. France, vol. 104: 127- 158, vol. 105: 144-176, vol. 106: 283-323). 1961. New species of Chinese Chrysomelidae. Acta entomol. sinica vol. 10: 433-435. DACCORDI, M., 1976. Note sinonimiche su alcuni Entomoscelini, con osser- vazioni sul sottogenere Synerga e descrizione di due nouve specie di Semenowia. Boll. Soc. entomol. Italia vol. 108: 31-39. 1978. Nuove specie di Chrysolina della regione etiopica (Coleoptera Chrysomelidae). Rev. Zool. Afr. vol. 92: 745-752. —_____ & RUFFO, S., 1975. Coleotteri Crisomelidi delle Isole Egadi e descri- zione di una nuova specie del genere Pachybrachis Chevr. Boll. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Verona vol. 1: 427-437. DEJEAN, J.A., 1837.Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. (edn 3). Paris, 1-503. FABRICIUS, J.C., 1781. Species Insectorum vol. 1. Hamburgi et Kilonii, 1-552. —____1792. Entomologia Systematica vol. I, pt. 1. Hafniae, 1-330. 1794. Entomologia Systematica vol. 1V. Hafniae, 1472. —____ 1798. Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae. Hafniae. 1798. Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae. Hafniae, 1-572. FERREIRA, M.C., 1967. Catalogo dos Coleopteros de Angola. Revta Entomol. Morgam bique vol. 8: 415-1317. GRESSITT, J.L.& KIMOTO, S., 1963a. The Chrysomelidae (Coleopt.) of China Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 and Korea. Part 2. Pacific Insects Monogr. vol. 1: 301-1026. 1963b. Supplement to “The Chrysomelidae (Coleopt.) of China and Korea’’. Pacific Insects vol. 5: 921-932. HOPE, F.W., 1840. The Coleopterist’s Manual vol. III. London, 1-191. JOLIVET, P., 1966. Notes systematiques et écologiques sur les Chrysomélides marocains (Coleoptera). Bull. Soc. sci. nat. Maroc vol. 46: 127-143. KONTKANEN, P., 1959. Uber einige Chrysolina-Arten der Sectio Pleurosticha Motsch. sensu Jacobson 1910 (Col., Chrysomelidae). Ann. Entomol. Fennici vol. 25: 27-35. LATREILLE, P.A., 1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des Crustacés, Arachnides et Insectes. Paris, 1444. LINNAEUS, C., 1758. Systema Naturae (edn 10). Holmiae, 1-823. LOPATIN, I.K., 1977. Zuki-listoedy Srednej Azii i Kazahstana. Opred. faune SSSR vol. 113: 1-270. MAULIK, S., 1925. Note on the nomenclature of the Coleopterous genera Chrysomela L., and Melasoma Steph. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (9) vol. 15: 95-96. 1926. Fauna of British India. Coleoptera. Chrysomelidae (Chrysomelinae and Halticinae). London, 1442. MEDVEDEV,L.N.& VORONOVA, N.V., 1976. K faune listoedov (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) Mongolii (On the fauna of the chrysomelid beetles of Mongolia). Nasekomye Mongolii vol. 4: 222-236. MOTSCHULSKY, V. de, 1860. Coléoptéres de la Sibérie orientale et en parti- culier des rives de PAmour. Schrenck’s Reisen und Forschungen im Amur-Lande vol. II(2): 79-258. ORBIGNY, C.D., 1842. Dictionnaire universel a@histoire naturelle. Vol. II: l -196. Paris. POPE, R.D., 1977. In Kloet & Hincks, A Chick list of British Insects (edn 2), part 3: Coleoptera and Strepsiptera. Handb. Ident. Brit. Ins. vol. X1(3): 1-105. STEPHENS, J.F., 1831. Illustrations of British Entomology. Mandibulata vol. IV. London, 1414. TAKIZAWA, H., 1970. Descriptions of five new species of the genus Chrysolina Motschulsky in Japan (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Kontyi vol. 38: 117-125. THOMSON, C.G., 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, vol. I. Lund, 1-290. VAN DYKE, E.C., 1938. A review of the genus Chrysolina Motschulsky in North America (Coleoptera — Chrysomelidae). Bull. Brooklyn Entomol. Soc. vol. 33: 45-58. WESTWOOD, J.0., 1838. An Introduction to the modern Classification of Insects, vol. 2 (Synopsis of the genera of British Insects). London, 148. 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CHUANGIA WALCOTT, 1911, PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS; SHANTUNGIA WALCOTT, 1905, PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST (TRILOBITA). Z.N.(S.)635 By C. Lochman Balk (Geology Department, Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, Box 1421, New Mexico 87801), the late J. Marvin Weller (University of Chicago, U.S.A.) and C.J. Stubblefield (35 Kent Avenue, Ealing, London W13 8BE) The application has two purposes: first, to seek the validation of the generic name Chuangia Walcott, 1911 in place of Schantungia Lorenz, 1906, and secondly to propose that the generic name Shantungia Walcott, 1905, be placed on the Official List. 2. The generic name Schantungia was introduced by Lorenz, 1906, Z. deutsch. geol. Ges., vol. 58(1), p. 79, for a new genus of Cambrian trilobites with four originally included species, two of which were new; S. buchruckeri Lorenz, 1906 was placed first in the work. The name was derived from the Chinese province then customarily spelt in German ‘Schantung’. No type species was fixed by Lorenz, and no subsequent designation is known. 3. Walcott, 1911, Smiths. misc. Colls, vol. 57(4), p. 72, considered Schantungia Lorenz, 1906, the spelling of which he mis- quoted as ‘Shantungia’, to be a junior homonym of the name that he had introduced in 1905 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 29 (1415), p. 87) variously as Shangtungia and Shantungia, for a different Cambrian trilobite. He proposed Chuangia as a replacement name, but designated Ptychoparia? batia Walcott, 1905 as type species of the genus, and this was accepted by C. Lochman Balk, 1959, Treatise invert. Paleontol., vol. O, p. 313. Walcott’s 1911 action is, however, clearly invalid on three grounds: (1) following Article 56 of the Code, Schantungia is not ahomonym of either Shantungia Walcott, 1905, or Shangtungia Walcott, 1905; (2) he designated as type species of the genus renamed Chuangia a species that was not among the originally included species of Schantungia; (3) he synonymised one of those species, S. buchruckeri, with his species, Chuangia nitida, described as new in 1911 (p. 85) but did not use the valid senior synonym for it. This erroneous procedure was followed by Resser, 1942, Smiths. misc. Colls vol. 101(15) p. 11. 4. Chuangia has been used in preference to Schantungia since 1934 in the following works: Reed, 1934; Kobayashi, 1934, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 1, May 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 1937, 1960, 1967; Sun, 1935; Resser & Endo, 1937: Fromaget, 1941; Resser, 1942: Endo, 1944; Hupé, 1953: Lu Yen-hao, 1957; Bell, 1957; Chien Yi-yuan, 1958; Wang, 1958: Lochman Balk, 1959; Chernysheva, 1960;ChuChao-ling, 1960:;Stocklin etal., 1964: Lu, Chang et ai., 1965; Cochen, 1967, 1968; Palmer, 1968; Kushan, 1973; Schrank, 1974, 1975; Lisogor, 1977; Zhou Tun-mei etal, 1977 (a list of these references is held in the file in the Commission’s Secretariat). No example has been traced of the subsequent use of Schantungia, nor any type species-fixation for the genus. In view of the general acceptance of Chuangia with Ptychoparia? batia as its type species, it is considered to be in the interests of nomenclatural stability to preserve this usage. The valid name Chuangia buchruckeri (Lorenz, 1906) was used in preference to C. nitida Walcott, 1911, by Lu, Changer al, 1965, Zhonggo Gemenlei Huashi: Zhongguod Sanyechong {Fossils of each group of China: Chinese Trilobites] , vol. 1, p. 364, not following Walcott, 1911. 5S. The second part of this application concerns the relative ae of the two spellings Shantungia and Shangtungia Walcott, 905. 6. Walcott, 1905, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. vol. 29 (1415), p. 87) proposed Shangtungia for a new trilobite genus and designated Shangtungia spinifera Walcott, 1905 as its type species. On the next line the species was described as ‘Shantungia spinifera new species’. Elsewhere in the same Paper (pp. 5, 9) it was listed as Shangtungia spinifera. In 1911 (Smiths. misc. Colls, vol. 57(4), p. 72) and again in 1913 (Publs. Carnegie Inst., No. 54, Research in China, vol. 3, ep, V, 6,.7,.10, 53, 147, 148, 250, 255, 369) Walcott listed the genus as Shantungia. The 1913 work included a synonymy reference to his 1905 paper and contained a revised description of the genus and of its type species, and, in terms of Article 32b of the Code, is interpreted as action by a first reviser. Shantungia thereby became the valid spelling of the generic name. 7. Howell & Moore, 1959, Treatise invert. Paleontol., vol. O, p. 248, adopted the spelling Shangtungia (although Shantungia was used for the illustration on p. O. 246), but this appears to be an exception to current usage, for the spelling Shantungia has been used in the following works: Resser & Endo, 1937; Resser, 1942: Endo, 1953; Kobayashi, 1956, 1960; Chang, 1957, 1959% lu Yen-hao, Chang et al., 1965; Opik, 1967. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to suppress the generic name Schantungia Lorenz, 1906, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but 64 (2) (3) (4) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Chuangia Walcott, 1911, and to designate Ptychoparia? batia Walcott, 1905, as type species of that genus; to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Chuangia Walcott, 1911 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Ptychoparia? batia Walcott, 1905; (b) Shantungia Walcott, 1905 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Shantungia spinifera Walcott, 1905 (a correct original spelling by virtue of the first reviser action of Walcott, 1913); to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) batia Walcott, 1905, as published in the binomen Ptychoparia? batia (specific name of type species of Chuangia Walcott, 1911); (b) spinifera Walcott, 1905, as published in the bino- men Shantungia spinifera (specific name of type species of Shantungia Walcott, 1905); to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Schantungia Lorenz, 1906, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above; (b) Shangtungia Walcott, 1905, an incorrect original spelling by virtue of the first reviser action of Walcott, 1913. Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the main regular source of income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales of this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of dona- tions and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. ©1980 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD. Volume 37, Part 2 pp. 65 — 128 ISSN 0007 - 5167 19 June 1980 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL wees j NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS Page Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: 1. Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .... 65 2. Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain TASES eae Oe eee hee meer ey sl cae MNS Conse > 2 = eee. ays ete 65 (Contents continued on page vii) LONDON International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD Price £7.50 (All rights reserved) THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON > ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE seeing A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA-cfo-/.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). Vice-President: Prof. Per-BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). Assistant Secretary: Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Prof. T. HABE (National Science Museum, 3-23-1 Hyakunin-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) (Councillor) Mollusca Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972) Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September, 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum dHistoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Prof. Harold E. VOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crustacea Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 bis rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Lepidoptera Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231, Paris, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada) (17 March 1976) Nematoda Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (Bureau of Flora and Fauna, Department of Science and the Environment, P.O. Box 449, Woden, A.C.T. 2606, Australia) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 1976) (President) Diptera Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitatsgebiet Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsd, Norway) (27 December 1978) Parasitology Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Octocorallia; Systematics Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. D. Curry, F.G:S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Mon. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. N.E. Hickin Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Mr. C.W. Wright, C.B. Dr. G.F. deWitte B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) iy CONTENTS (continued from front cover) Comments Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta): proposed designation of a type species (Thomas L. Thompson) .................... Intermediate categuries in the species group (H. Silfverberg) ........ Opinions Opinion 1149. Blanus Wagler, 1830, and A mphisbaena cinerea Vandelli, iyo7 (Reptiia Squamata)y CONServed ~'r sss Wate sie tele eh a oe Opinion 1150. Chilodus Muller & Troschel, 1844, and Caenotropus Guenther, 1 864 (Pisces) placed on the Official List ........... Opinion 1151. Lingulops Hall, 1872 (Brachiopoda) conserved....... Opinion 1152. Ophiura Lamarck, 1801 and Ophioderma Muller & Troschel, 1840 (Ophiuroidea): ruling on application of these HAIES ng chp tslieiel = cee Pek ere S aos aah the Shttoloe Opinion 1153. Galaxias platei Steindachner, 1898, given nomenclatural precedence over Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895 (Pisces) by the use IPERS PIED ALVIS DOW CISC iss coe Bschate ee ENG eras oo anes co) PS RRR wre Opinion 1154. Drupella Thiele, 1925 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): designa- tion of a type species by the use of the plenary powers ........ Opinion 1155. Saperda inornata Say, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): designation of a neotype by the use of the plenary powers ...... Opinion 1156. Terebra variegata Gray, 1834 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) conserved by the use of the plenary powers ................- Opinion 1157. Sphex viatica [sic] Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Hymenop- tera) Adesignation of lectotypeareten: . 2 Lb. tee el. Aeeolze Opinion 1158. Litomosa viteae ruled under the plenary powers to be the correct original spelling of Litomosa wite Krepkogorskaya, MOSS (NEI ALO Gd) is aka ok ot it eR I i, oe eS Ue fe Opinion 1159. Littorina (Mollusca, Gastropoda): author and date of this generic name, and type species of this nominal genus deter- mined by use'of theplenary powers .-.. <2: 2 5 ee ce ww we Direction Direction 108. Correction of Name No. 2087 in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: for Murex striata Gmelin, 1791, read Praiii Siridia CsI Melin iO eee, ca Pe. suse hebeesiteosge: wth ests Re New and revived cases Macrocephalites (Sutner MS) Zittel, 1884 and Ammonites macroce- phalus Schlotheim, 1813 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): (J.H. Callonion)Pre CR ere. OER EAE be eo Lea Vii Page 67 69 72 75 78 81 85 89 94 96 99 103 107 Viii Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865 (Mollusca, Bivalvia: PHOLADIDAE): proposed conservation (E.V. Coan & G.L. Kennedy) .......... Heterelis Costa, 1887 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed procedure for concludingthe.case,c ihe Secretary) ~ . sacs sous sous Wee ce Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): revised proposals for conservation/(R.E. Wihtite)) .. stan cpmce Bo op onchiy titi oes apres IOTONCHINAE: withdrawal of proposal concerning homonymy of IOTONGHINAE-in Nematoda... i ctaohucdsJs.. dead «inte. sees Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed designation of type species (A.T. Thomas & R.M. Owens)... ..).6 606 ye eee ee tuelans Sternotherus Gray, 1825, correct spelling; and Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation (H.M. & R.B. Smith es GIS Zany verte that ee Beles cucuc o begeNuiehices: «PS te. Be Page 114 117 119 121 122 124 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 37, part 2 (pp. 65 - 128) 19 June, 1980 NOTICES (a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circum- stances the Commission may start to vote on applications pub- lished 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 application of Articles 23a-b and 79b): (1) Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865 (Mollusca, Bivalvia: PHOLADIDAE): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)1054. (E.V. Coan & G.L. Kennedy). (2) Heterelis Costa, 1887 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed procedure for concluding the case. Z.N.(S.)1175. (Secretary). *(3) Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): revised proposals for conservation. Z.N.(S.)2048. (R.E. White). (4) Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed desig- nation of type species. Z.N.(S.)2257. (A.T. Thomas & R.M. Owens). (5) Sternotherus Gray, 1825, correct spelling; and Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conser- vation. Z.N(S.)2278. (H.M. & R.B. Smith & D. Chiszar). (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new appli- cations have been received since the publication of vol. 37(1) on 8th May 1980. Those marked with an asterisk involve the appli- cation of Articles 23a-b and 79b. (1) EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837: proposal to give precedence over HYDRELLIIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1830 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.S.)2334. (W.N. Mathis) (2) Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (Nematoda, Dorylaimida): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.)2335 (Q.H. Bagri). (3) Chelonus Jurine in Panzer, 1801, and Anomala Samouelle, 1819 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2336. (C. van Achterberg). (4) Crotalocephalus Salter, 1853 (Trilobita): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.)2337. (P.D. Lane). *(5) Hydrodamalis Retzius, 1794; Trichechus inunguis (Natterer in Pelzeln, 1839) (Mammalia, Sirenia): pro- posed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2338 (D.P. Domning). (6) Kinosternon alamose and K. oaxacae Pritchard, 1979 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed suppression. Z.N.(S.) 2339. (P.C.H. Pritchard & N. Pronek). SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT The Editorial Committee on the Third Edition of the Inter- national Code on Zoological Nomenclature held its final meeting in London from 28 April to 3 May 1980. The main purpose of the meeting was to finalise the draft text of the Code (subject to votes by the Commission on a number of points) in accordance with the instruction of the Division of Zoology of 1.U.B.S. at Helsinki in 1979. The opportunity was taken to hold a joint meeting between members of the Council of the Commission and the Management Committee of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. The Trust wishes to express its grateful thanks for a grant by the Trustees of the Nuffield Foundation towards the expenses of the Editorial Committee meeting. c/o British Museum (Natural History) R.V. MELVILLE Cromwell Road Secretary, London SW7 SBD International Commission on United Kingdom Zoological Nomenclature May 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR GNATHODUS PANDER, 1856 (CONODONTA). Z.N.(S.) 2279 (see vol. 36, pp. 57-62; pp. 201-202) By Thomas L. Thompson (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 250 Rolla, Missouri 65401, U.S.A.) Forms identified as Gnathodus have been recovered from samples of earliest to latest Mississippian in age (Kinderhookian through middle Chesterian Series in North America). Within the lower Mississippian (Kinderhookian- Osagean Series) Gnathodus is the major element of conodont biostratigraphic zonation, being one of the name givers in six out of nine zones proposed by Thompson & Fellows, 1970, Missouri Geol. Surv. Rep. Inv., no. 45, for south- western Missouri strata. It is also a major element in lower and upper Meramecian and Chesterian biostratigraphic zonations. The loss of, or renaming of, forms now identified as Gnathodus would seriously hinder present and future understanding and usefulness of conodont biostratigraphic zonation in the Mississippian System of North America and the Lower Carboniferous of Europe. The proposal by Lane & Ziegler to desig- nate Gnathodus texanus Roundy as the type species is a good one in that G. texanus is a well-understood form, and its relationship to the development of the genus has been documented (Thompson, 1979, Lethaia vol. 12). For stability of nomenclature of this important Mississippian biostratigraphic tool and for accurate designation of the morphological concepts to whith the generic name Gnathodus has been given in the literature for over 40 years, I recommend acceptance of their proposal. [Editor’s note: Dr. Walter Schafer (Geologisches Landesamt Nordrhein- Westfalen, Krefeld, B.R.D.) also supports the application. ] COMMENT ON INTERMEDIATE CATEGORIES IN THE SPECIES GROUP Z.NAS.) 2250 (see vol. 36, pp. 71-72) By Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland) A proposal was recently introduced by Bernardi and Melville (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 71-72) to add some intermediate categories to the species group, one above the species and representing a group of closely related allopatric species, the other between species and subspecies, forming subspecies groups. The latter category has been used sometimes, e.g. by Breuning in his large Carabus revision (Best.—Tab. eur. Coleopt., Hefte 104-110, 1932-36), although his terminology was somewhat different. Breuning called the local taxon “natio”, and grouped several nationes into subspecies, but within the Provisions of the Code is natio is a subspecific taxon. Breuning’s presentation Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the geographical forms was the same, which Bernardi and Melville propose, so their proposal would, at least in its latter part, give official consent to an existing, although infrequent, usage. As for the supra-specific epithet, I suppose it will have its use, too. I would only recommend a quite firm wording lest it be used undiscriminatingly for species groups in general, all the more since species groups sometimes even have been used instead of subgenera. On the other hand, provisions should be made for allopatry existing only in microhabitats, as seen e.g. in the fish genus Coregonus. I do have some apprehensions of a practical kind in connection with this proposal. I am sure that we do not wish to see faunistic lists etc. cluttered with strings of names like Carabus (Mesocarabus) problematicus (gallicus) strandi Born, or even Carabus (Procrustes) (violaceus) violaceus (violaceus) violaceus L. Maybe a recommendation should be inserted, saying an author should use the intermediate categories only when he considers that they give necessary information for the publication in question. Maybe some thought also should be given to certain other interme- diate categories, sometimes in use. At least in the large genera Carabus and Otiorhynchus an infrasubgeneric category has been used, with names of the generic type. The names themselves are naturally covered by the provisions of the Code, but should their presentation in text be formalized? In the family group we meet several categories, four of which are named in the Code. Yet only the family and subfamily endings are mandatory, for superfamilies and tribes we only have a recommendation that the endings should be -oidea and -ini. Should the latter ones also be made mandatory? In addition, the category subtribe, normally ending in -ina, is rather frequently in use in large families. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the Code, with the ending given in a recommendation. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 OPINION 1149 BLANUS WAGLER, 1830, AND AMPHISBAENA CINEREA VANDELLI, 1797 (REPTILIA SQUAMATA) CONSERVED RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name recticulata C.P. Thunberg, 1787, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena reticulata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Blanus Wagler, 1830 (gender: mascu- line), type species, by monotypy, Amphisbaena cinerea Vandelli, 1797, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2098. (3) The specific name cinerea Vandelli, 1797, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena cinerea (specific name of type species of Blanus Wagler, 1830), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2700. (4) The specific name reticulata C.P. Thunberg, 1787, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena reticulata, and 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 1063. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.AS.) 1468 An application for the suppression of Amphisbaena reticulata C.P. Thunberg, 1787, was first received from Dr Carl Gans (then of University of Buffalo, New York) on 28 September 1960. It was sent to the printer on 8 December 1960 and was published on 16 June 1961 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 18, pp. 223-224. The proposal was supported by Professor Hobart M. Smith. No adverse comment was received. Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case had been given to two herpetological serials. FIRST VOTE OF THE COMMISSION On 31 May 1962 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (62)22 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 18, p. 223. A note on the Voting Paper stated that the case had Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature been published before the new (1961) edition of the Code had come into force, and that Amphisbaena reticulata C.P. Thunberg, 1787 could be automatically rejected under the provisions of Article 23b without the use of the plenary powers. At the close of the voting period on 31 August 1962 there were 24 affirmative votes and no negative votes. Two late affirmative votes were returned. For reasons that cannot now be known, no Opinion was issued following this vote. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE When I came to examine the file on case Z.N.(S.)1468 in 1974, I thought that it would be unwise to issue an Opinion after so long a delay. I therefore asked Professor Gans to supply the references required, under the revised Articles 23a-b and 79b of 1972, to establish a prima facie case for the conservation of Amphis-. baena cinerea Vandelli, 1797. The application was therefore repub- lished, with the references provided by Professor Gans, on 27 June 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 113-114. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and two herpetological serials. At the same time, I sought approval from the Council to publish an Opinion on the case as soon as statutorily possible, with- out proceeding to a second vote if there were no adverse comments. This suggestion was not approved; in any event, a comment was received from Professor Mroczkowski suggesting that the “relative precedence”’ procedure should be applied. This, with Professor Gans’s rebuttal, was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 199- 200. No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 August 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (79)5 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 114. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19), received in the following order: Melville, Vokes, Holthuis, Alvarado, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Habe, Welch, Brinck, Bernardi, Corliss, Nye, Cogger, Heppell, Bayer Negative Vote — Dupuis. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 Late Affirmative Votes were received from Kraus, Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. Binder did not vote. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their votes: Hahn: ‘The objection of Dr Mroczkowski is important. But the possibility of finding the type material of A. reticulata seems to be so small that I nevertheless agree with hesitation to Dr Gans’s proposal.’ Bernardi: “‘ ‘For’ avec réserve. Je préfére, malgré les arguments de Gans, la modification proposée par Mroczkowski.”’ Dupuis: “Je vote contre la supression pour les raisons invoquées par Mroczkowski. Mais je vote aussi contre la falsification de dates que supposerait la procédure de ‘relative precedence’. En fait, A. reticulata est un nomen quasi-nudum qui ne géne personne.” Nye: “I would, like Dr Mroczkowski, have preferred that A. cinerea be given precedence over A. reticulata. However, in view of Dr Gans’s reply, I support his application.” ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Blanus Wagler, 1830, Nat. System der Amphibien . . ., Munchen, Stuttgart and Tilbingen, p. 197 cinerea, Amphisbaena, Vandelli, D., 1797, Mem. Acad. real Sci. Lisboa, p. 69 reticulata, Amphisbaena, C.P. Thunberg, 1787, D.D. Mus. Nat. Acad. Upsaliensis, p. 30. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)5 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1149. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 2 January 1980 753 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ., OPINION 1150 CHILODUS MULLER & TROSCHEL, 1844, AND CAENOTROPUS GUENTHER, 1864 (PISCES) PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING — (1) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Chilodus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Chilodus punctatus Muller & Troschel, 1844 (Name Number 2099): (b) Caenotropus Guenther, 1864 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Eigenmann, 1910, Microdus labyrinthicus Kner, 1858 (Name Number 2100). (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) punctatus Miller & Troschel, 1844, as published in the binomen Chilodus punctatus (specific name of type species of Chilodus Muller & Troschel, 1844) (Name Number 2701); (b) labyrinthicus Kner, 1858, as published in the binomen Microdus labyrinthicus (specific name of type species of Caenotropus Guenther, 1864) (Name Number 2702). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1502 An application for a ruling on the validity of a designation of type species for the nominal genera Chilodus Miller & Troschel, 1844 and Caenotropus Guenther, 1864 was first received from Messrs J.R. Géry (Strasbourg, France) and J.J. Hoedeman (Zoologi- cal Museum, Amsterdam, Netherlands) on 18 October 1961. It was sent to the printer on 20 October 1961 and published on 28 May 1962 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 19, pp. 191-192. No use of the plenary powers was asked for. An adverse comment by E. Trewavas and P.H. Greenwood (British Museum (Natural History) London) was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 20, p.147. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 FIRST VOTE OF THE COMMISSION On 24 October 1963 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1963) 30 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 19, p. 192. At the close of the voting period on 24 January 1964 there were eight affirmative votes, 21 negative votes, and one voting paper not returned. The proposals of Messrs Géry & Hoedeman were thus rejected; but the contrary proposals of Trewavas & Green- wood, not having been specifically voted on, had not been adopted. No action to resolve this stalemate was taken at that time. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE On 31 October 1969 I received a letter from Dr L.B. Holthuis asking me to look into the reasons why no Opinion had been published on the original application. When I came to deal with this request (with the help of the late Dr W.E. China), I found that the facts had not been fully or clearly presented to the Commission. I therefore prepared a report to the Commission in which these facts were stated. I proposed that the Commission, in resolving the stale- mate resulting from its earlier vote, should rule that the Code should be directly applied to the case, since this would confirm existing practice among ichthyologists. My report was published on 28 March 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 45-50. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 August 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1979)6 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 49-50. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Vokes, Holthuis, Alvarado, Hahn, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Habe, Welch, Brinck, Bernardi, Bayer, Dupuis, Corliss, Nye, Cogger, Heppell Negative Vote — Mroczkowski. Late Affirmative Votes were returned by Kraus, Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. No vote was returned by Binder. In returning his voting paper Dr Sabrosky observed: ‘My quoted comment (2) [see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 48] was not 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature well stated, but it is still my strong feeling that the simple application of the Regles (the 1961 Code may not have been available to Géry & Hoedeman) would have rendered this application unnecessary.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Caenotropus Guenther, 1864, Cat. Fishes Brit. Mus. vol. 5, p. 297 Chilodus Miller & Troschel, 1844, Arch. Naturg. Jahrgang 10, vol. 1pp. 83 labyrinthicus, Microdus, Kner, 1858, Sitzungsber. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien, vol. 30, Heft 13, p. 77 punctatus, Chilodus, Miller & Troschel, 1844, Arch. Naturg., Jahrgang 10, vol. 1, p. 85 The following is the original reference to a designation of type species accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Microdus labyrinthicus Kner, 1858, as type species of Caenotropus Guenther, 1864 by Eigenmann, 1910, Repts Princeton Univ. Expeds Patagonia, 1896-9, vol. 3, part 4, p. 424. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)6 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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1150. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 2 January 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 OPINION 1151 LINGULOPS HALL, 1872 (BRACHIOPODA) CONSERVED RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Ligulops Hall, 1871, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Lingulops Hall, 1872 (gender: mascu- line), type species, by monotypy, Lingulops whitfieldi Hall, 1872, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2101. (3) The specific name whitfieldi Hall, 1872, as published in the binomen Lingulops whitfieldi (specific name of type species of Lingulops Hall, 1872) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2703. (4) The generic name Ligulops Hall, 1871, 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 2114. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1505 An application from Dr A.J. Rowell (then of University of Nottingham, England) for the conservation of the generic name Lingulops Hall, 1872, was first received on 31 October 1961. It was sent to the printer on 6 December 1961 and published on 10 September 1962 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 19, p. 310. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory journals and five specialist journals. In the uncertainty that then prevailed con- cerning the interpretation of Article 23b of the 1961 Code, it was not clear whether Lingulops Hall, 1872, could be treated as an emendation of Ligulops and, if so, whether Ligulops Hall, 1871 and 1872 could be dealt with under that provision. These aspects were discussed by Dr L.B. Holthuis and the late Professor Chester Bradley and general agreement was reached that the case would be best treated by use of the plenary powers, but the case was not then put to a vote. The application was supported by Dr Arthur J. Boucot (California Institute of Technology) and Dr J.A. Talent (Geological Survey of Victoria, Australia). The file was reopened in October 1974 when a revised presentation of the case was sent to Dr Rowell (by that time at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and approved Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by him. It was sent to the printer on 19 November 1974 and published on 27 March 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 51. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was again given. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 August 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1979)7 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 51. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Vokes, Holthuis, Alvarado, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Welch, Brinck, Habe, Corliss, Bayer, Nye, Heppell Abstentions — Dupuis, Cogger Negative Vote — Bernardi. Late affirmative votes were returned by Kraus, Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. No vote was returned by Binder. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Hahn: ‘1 fully agree with Dr Rowell’s proposal. Also, even if the emendation of Hall, 1872, is invalid, it was apparently his “intentio auctoris” to name his genus Lingulops. This is proved by his notice “Printed Ligu/ops by mistake in some copies of this paper. Ligulops, suppressed as a nomen oblitum under Art. 23a-b before 1973 should not come into use again because of an altera- tion of Art. 23 that I consider awkward.’ Bernardi: ‘Il ne me semble pas que l'emploi de Ligulops constitue une source de confusion. Pourquoi ne pas appliquer strictement le Code et écrire désormais Ligulops au lieu de Lingulops en “‘renvenant aux sources’’?’ Dupuis: ‘Je vote pour Lingulops avec la date de 1871 (puisque les deux descriptions sont identiques). Hall savait trés bien ce qu'il faisait et toutes nos mesquineries n’y changeront rien.’ Cogger: ‘This proposal is surely unnecessary. All authors have apparently assumed that Ligulops Hall, 1871 was a lapsus for Lingulops, i.e. they have regarded Lingulops as a valid emendation of Ligulops. Indeed, a statement by the original author that the latter name was “printed . . . by mistake” for Lingulops can reason- ably be argued as a justified emendation under Article 33a(i), and I would regard it as such. However, if it was felt necessary to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77 remove any ambiguity an appropriate course would seem to be to use the plenary powers to confirm Lingulops Hall, 1872 as a justified emendation of Ligulops Hall, 1871. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Ligulops Hall, 1871, Preliminary Notice: 23rd Report State Cabinet Nat. Hist... Paleontology New York, p. 2 Lingulops Hall, 1872, 23rd Report State Cabinet Nat. Hist., p. 245 whitfieldi, Lingulops, Hall, 1872, 23rd Report State Cabinet Nat. Hist., expl. pl. 13, figs. 1, 2. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)7 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1151. RY, MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 January 1980 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1152 OPHIURA LAMARCK, 1801 AND OPHIODERMA MULLER & TROSCHEL, 1840 (OPHIUROIDEA): RULING ON APPLICATION OF THESE NAMES RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of lectotype for the nominal species Asterias ophiura Linnaeus, 1758, hitherto made are hereby set aside, and the specimen illus- trated by Linck, 1733, plate 2, number 4, is hereby designated as lectotype of that species. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Ophiura Lamarck, 1801 (gender: feminine), type species by absolute tautonymy, Asterias ophiura Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2102); (b) Ophioderma Miiller & Troschel, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by H.L. Clark, 1915, Asterias longicauda Retzius, 1805 (Name Number 2103). jl (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) ophiura Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Asterias ophiura, and as defined by the lectotype desig- nated under the plenary powers in (1) above (specific name of type species of Ophiura Lamarck, 1801) (Name Number 2704); (b) Jongicauda Retzius, 1805, as published in the binomen Asterias longicauda (specific name of type species of Ophioderma Miiller & Troschel, 1840) (Name Number 2705). (4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) OPHIURIDAE Miller & Troschel, 1840 (type genus Ophiura Lamarck, 1801) (Name Number 504); (b) OPHIODERMATIDAE Ljungman, 1867 (type genus Ophioderma Miiller & Troschel, 1840 (Name Number 505). Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S) 1772 An application for the stabilisation of some names of common European Ophiuroidea was first received from Miss Ailsa Clark (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 7 September 1966. It was sent to the printer on 10 January 1967 and published on 27 April 1967 in Bull: zool. Nom. vol. 24, pp. 98-115. Objec- tions to the application were raised by Dr L.B. Holthuis, and the case was not then pursued further. When I came to examine the file in April 1974, I saw that progress could only be made by studying the many names involved individually, and Miss Clark kindly agreed to this procedure. We then prepared a fresh application concerning only Ophiura and Ophioderma which was sent to the printer on 14 October 1975 and published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 265-267. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to seven other serials. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 August 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1979)9 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 267. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Vokes, Holthuis, Alvarado, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Welch, Brinck, Bernardi, Habe, Dupuis, Corliss, Bayer, Heppell, Nye Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were sent in by Kraus, Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. No vote was returned by Binder and Cogger. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Hahn: ‘In the application the authorship and date of OPHIURIDAE are given as Miller & Troschel, 1840 (as “Ophiuren’’); this is in accordance with Article 1 le(iii). But the Treatise on Inver- tebrate Paleontology p. U93 gives ““OPHIURIDAE Lyman, 1865”’, and Lyman, as far as I know, was the first author to use the fully latinised form of that family name. I fear that at least in the palae- ontological literature most authors with follow the Treatise.’ Tortonese: ‘It must be admitted that it is very regrettable 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to abandon the specific name texturata for a species of Ophiura so widely known under that name.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: longicauda, Asterias, Retzius, 1805, Diss. sist. spec. cogn. Ast., p. 29 Ophioderma Miller & Troschel, 1840, Arch. Naturges. Jahrgang 6, vol. 1, p. 329 OPHIODERMATIDAE Ljungman, 1867, Ofv. k. Vetensk. Akad. Forh., for 1866, p. 303 Ophiura Lamarck, 1801, Syst. anim. s. vert., p. 350 . ophiura, Asterias, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 662 OPHIURIDAE Muller & Troschel, 1840, Arch. Naturges. Jahrgang 6, vol. 1, p. 329. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)9 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion Woot Ts2. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 January 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81 OPINION 1153 GALAXIAS PLATEI STEINDACHNER, 1898, GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER GALAXIAS DELFINI PHILIPPI, 1895, (PISCES) BY THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name platei Steindachner, 1898, as published in the binomen Galaxias platei, is to be given nomenclatural prece- dence over the specific name delfini Philippi, as published in the binomen Galaxias delfini. (2) The specific name platei Steindachner, 1898, as pub- lished in the binomen Galaxias platei, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2706, and with the endorsement that it is to be used in preference to the specific name delfini Philippi, 1895, as published in the binomen Galaxias delfini, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms. (3) The specific name del/fini Philippi, 1895, as published in the binomen Galaxias delfini, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2707, and with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name platei Steindachner, 1898, as published in the binomen Galaxias platei, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.) 1877 An application for the conservation of Galaxias platei Steindachner, 1898, by the rejection of its unused senior synonym G. delfini Philippi, 1895, was first received from Dr R.M. McDowall (Fisheries Research Division, Wellington, New Zealand) on 22 January 1969. Dr McDowall supposed that the senior name could be automatically rejected under the provisions of Article 23b (of the 1961 Code); but as the application of that provision was obscure, and as it was then being examined by a committee of the Commission under Professor Ernst Mayr, publication of the appli- cation was deferred. A _ revised application asking for the suppression of G. delfini by the use of the plenary powers was eventually sent to the printer on 2 April 1973 and published on Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 10 October 1973 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, pp. 88-89. In both the original and the revised versions of his paper Dr McDowall had provided prima facie evidence in support of his case as required under Articles 23a-b, 79b. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to an ichthyological serial. The application was supported by Dr A.P. Andrews (Tasmanian Museum) and clarified by Dr Lemche, whose obser- vations were published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, p. 8. FIRST VOTE OF THE COMMISSION On 10 February 1976 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1976)12 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, p. 88 and as clarified in vol. 31, p. 8. At the close of the voting period on 10 May 1976 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — thirteen (13) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Eisenmann, Vokes, Willink, Tortonese, Mroczkowski, Corliss, Rohdendorf, Heppell, Bayer Negative Votes — four (4): Sabrosky, Bernardi, Nye, Dupuis. Late affirmative votes were received from Alvarado, Ride, Habe and Brinck. Binder and Erben were on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Kraus, Simpson and Starobogatov. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Sabrosky: ‘The fact that so many authors uncritically accepted and followed Regan’s error is depressing.’ Nye: ‘I should be willing to vote in favour of a ruling that G. platei should be given nomenclatural precedence over G. delfini by anyone treating them as conspecific, but I am not willing to vote for the suppression of a subjective synonym especially when there is no mention of the type specimens of the taxa concerned.’ Bernardi: ‘Il ne semble pas s’agir ici de poisson présentant une importance économique. Je préfére appliquer la Loi de Priorité. Ride (with a late vote): ‘I consider that the relevant prece- dence procedure should be applied, if the applicant agrees.’ These comments were communicated to Dr McDowall, who agreed that the relative precedence procedure should be applied. Since that entailed a use of the plenary powers that had not been advertised it was necessary to prepare a fresh application. This was sent to the printer on 29 March 1977 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 80. Public notice of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to 12 other serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 August 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1979)11 for or against the proposals set forth in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 80. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17), received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Hahn, Welch, Brinck, Bernardi, Bayer, Habe, Corliss, Nye, Cogger Negative Votes — Dupuis, Heppell. Sabrosky abstained. Late affirmative votes were returned by Kraus, Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. No vote was returned by Binder. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Dupuis: ‘Je confirme mon vote contre de 1976 — et j’ajoute que le mélange de nomenclature et de taxinomie qu’on nous propose aujourd’hui n’est pas une pratique claire et heureuse.’ Heppell: ‘1 vote for the original proposal requesting the suppression of G. delfini and for letting the vote on V.P.(76)12 stand. I also think the new voting paper should have clearly offered this option, as otherwise it seems that G. delfini will be placed on the Official List whichever way the Commission votes.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: delfini, Galaxias, Philippi, 1895, Verh. deutsch wiss. Ver. Santiago Chile, vol. 3, pp. 17-22 platei, Galaxias, Steindachner, 1898, Zool. Jahrb, Suppl. vol. 4, px529: CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (79)11 were cast 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1153. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 8 January 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 OPINION 1154 DRUPELLA THIELE, 1925 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES BY THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the genus Drupella Thiele, 1925, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Purpura elata Blainville, 1832, is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Drupella Thiele, 1925 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Purpura elata Blainville, 1832, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2104. (3) The specific name cornus Roeding, 1798, as published in the binomen Drupa cornus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2708. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N (S.) 1891 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for the genus Drupella Thiele, 1925, was first received from Dr W.O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, New Zealand) on 11 June 1969. It was sent to the printer on 26 August 1969 and published on 7 April 1970 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 26, pp. 233-234. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to two malacological serials. The application was supported by Dr Harald Rehder (U.S. National Museum). FIRST VOTE OF THE COMMISSION On 9 June 1971 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1971)14 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 26, p. 234. At the close of the voting period on 9 September 1971 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Holthuis, Vokes, Mayr, Lemche, Melville, Binder, Jaczewski, Simpson, Starobogatov, Bonnet, Alvarado, Eisenmann, Tortonese, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Forest, Ride, Munroe Negative Votes — none (0). Sabrosky abstained from voting. A late affirmative vote was returned by Brinck. No voting paper was returned by Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Sabrosky: ‘I raise the point of order that under Article 70a the Commission should choose between Drupa cornus Roeding [Art. 70a(i)] or Ricinula siderea Reeve [Art. 7Oa(ili)], and not Sistr'um ochrostoma. The alternative of doubt [Art. 70a(ii)] does not seem to apply, from Cernohorsky’s positive statement of identification from Thiele’s figures. Is not Drupa cornus also a Drupella?’ Ride: ‘The application should also ask for the use of the plenary powers to set aside Article 70, because the solution pro- posed to the Commission is for none of the alternatives set out in that Article. Under Article 70 the alternatives would be a(i) Drupa cornus Roeding, a(ii) not applicable because the identity of the species is not in doubt, a(iii) Ricinula siderea Reeve.’ SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE On 11 October 1971, shortly after the close of the voting period for V.P.(71)14, a letter was received from Dr Harald Rehder which clearly called for the case to be reopened. Dr Rehder said: ‘1. To begin with, Cernohorsky’s statement in the last sentence of paragraph 5 that Purpura elata Blainville, 1832 and Ricinula spectrum Reeve, 1846 are synonyms of Drupa cornus Roeding, 1798 is erroneous. D. cornus is restricted to the Indian Ocean and is orange within the aperture; D. elata (Blainville), with spectrum Reeve as a synonym, is found in the Pacific from Indonesia eastwards, and is white within the aperture. It is possible that elata should be considered a geographic race or subspecies of cornus. ‘2. The species Purpura elata listed by Martens from Mahé, Seychelles, and cited by Thiele, 1925, p. 171, is undoubtedly D. cornus Roeding. ‘3. Purpura elata and Ricinula spectrum are not synonyms of Sistrum ochrostoma Blainville as Tryon states. The latter is a distinct species whose radular characters have never been published. A radula slide in the U.S. National Museum, labelled as taken from S. ochrostoma from Hilo, Hawaii, shows a radula completely different from those figures by Thiele and on which Drupella is based. We do not have the specimen from which the radula was Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 taken, but other material of this species from Hilo is indistinguish- able from specimens of ochrostoma from Polynesia and Melanesia. ‘4. Thiele’s figure of the radula of “‘R. siderea Reeve”’ agrees with that of elata Blainville (+ spectrum Reeve), but he does not state the provenance of his specimen. ‘5. His figure of the radula of ‘““Drupella spectrum (Reeve)”’ from the Red Sea is distinct from the previous figure. This may represent the radula of D. cornus Roeding. ‘6. Because the only known radula preparation of Sistrum ochrostoma Blainville of which I am aware, from Hilo (mentioned above), differs so radically from that known for Purpura elata Blainville (+ spectrum Reeve), the radula that essentially characterises Thiele’s genus Drupella, Dr Cernohorsky should be asked to change his application by requesting that Purpura elata Blainville, 1832 be selected as type species of Drupella. This is an equally widely distri- buted Pacific species. With this emendation I should gladly support the application.’ Dr Cernohorsky, after reading Dr Rehder’s comment, presented a revised application which was sent to the printer on 13 February 1976 and published on31 March 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 190-191. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to 15 other serials. The application was supported by Dr W.K. Emerson (American Museum of Natural History, New York). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 August 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1979) 12 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 191. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Vokes, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Bayer, Hahn, Welch, Brinck, Bernardi, Habe, Dupuis, Corliss, Nye, Cogger, Heppell Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were returned by Kraus, Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. No vote was returned by Binder. Dr Sabrosky remarked on his voting paper: ‘I do not disagree with the purpose of the designation, but it would have been more logical and in agreement with Article 70a(i) to have chosen cornus 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Roeding rather than el/ata Blainville. Cernohorsky shows that the species misidentified by Thiele as Ricinula siderea and designated by von Ihering & Haas as type species of Drupella is Drupa cornus Roeding.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: cornus, Drupa, Roeding, 1798, Museum Boltenianum, (2), p. 56 Drupella Thiele, 1925, Wiss. Ergebnisse deutsch. Tiefsee-Expedition ... Valdivia’, 1898-1899, Gastropoda, Theil II, p. 171. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (79)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 on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1154. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 14 January 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 OPINION 1155 SAPERDA INORNATA SAY, 1824 (INSECTA: COLEOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE BY THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the nominal species Saperda inornata Say, 1824, is to be inter- preted by reference to the following neotype: American Museum of Natural History, New York, type number 147, bearing the labels ‘Dovr. N. Co. Mass. 6-8-95’ and ‘Saperda concolor var. unicolor, Type’ [ie. the type of Saperda concolor unicolor Felt & Joutel, 1904]. (2) The generic name Saperda Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Curtis, 1829, Cerambyx scalaris Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2105. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) inornata Say, 1824, as published in the binomen Saperda inornata, and as interpreted by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name Number 2709); (b) scalaris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cerambyx scalaris (specific name of type species of Saperda Fabricius, 1775 (Name Number 2710). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.) 1921 An application for the stabilisation of the name Saperda inornata Say, 1824, by the designation of a neotype under the plenary powers was first received from Dr John C. Nord (South- eastern Forest Experiment Station, Athens, Georgia, U.S.A.) and Dr Fred B. Knight (Department of Forestry, University of Michigan, U.S.A.) on 24 February 1970. It was sent to the printer on 10 March 1970 and published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27, pp. 123-128. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to seven entomological serials. No comment was received. eens ee EC) PW ht Ad iy Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 — 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 June 1972 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1972)16 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27, p. 127. At the close of the voting period on 1 September 1972, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Vokes, Lemche, Mayr, Eisenmann, Habe, Bonnet, Simpson, Corliss, Heppell, Melville, Alvarado, Erben, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Bayer, Forest, Willink, Binder, Starobogatov Negative Votes -- three (3): Munroe, Holthuis, Ride. Late affirmative votes were returned by Brinck, Jaczewski and Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Munroe: ‘| see no reason for the intervention of the Commis- sion in the present case. The author can himself designate a neo- type under the provisions of Article 75. The material relating to the generic name Saperda appears irrelevant to the application.’ Holthuis: ‘1 have no objection to the selection of a neotype for Saperda inornata, but see no good reason not to use a specimen from the type locality (Missouri).’ Ride: ‘Neotype designations should be made subject to the conditions laid down in Article 75 and should not require the use of the plenary powers unless the applicant establishes a case that to adhere to those provisions would disturb stability or universality or cause confusion. The application does not meet the requirements of Article 75 and the applicants do not, in my opinion, make an ade- quate case for the use of the plenary powers.’ These comments caused the case to be delayed. The delay was prolonged because of the intervention of the Monaco (1972) International Congress of Zoology, with all its consequences for the Code and the status of the Commission, and because of changes in the personnel of the Commission’s office. At length, in March 1974, the comments were relayed to Dr Nord. He replied in May 1976 to say that he had already published the designation, as the neotype of Saperda inornata, of the specimen proposed in his application to the Commission (Michigan Entomologist, vol. 4, 1971, pp. 33-38) on the assumption that the plenary powers need not be invoked. In July 1976 it was pointed out to him that the neotype, which came from Massachusetts, could only be designated by the Commission, using its plenary powers, because it did not come as nearly as practicable from the type locality (Art. 75c(6)). (It may be pointed out that Say’s locality was not the present-day state of Missouri, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 but the Missouri Territory of 1824. That corresponds roughly to Missouri, southwestern Iowa, Nebraska, eastern Colorado, Kansas and north central Oklahoma of today.) Dr Nord did not reply, and attempts to contact him through other North American coleopterists were unsuccessful. Eventually, on 14 January 1980, a letter was received from Dr Nord in which he accepted the necessity for the use of the plenary powers, maintained his original decision to propose the type of Saperda concolor var. unicolor Felt & Joutel, 1904 for designation, and cited the following arguments in favour of his proposal: ‘(1) The main purpose of the application was to stabilise the nomenclature. | think our article in Michigan Entomologist vol. 4, pp. 33-38 and the published application itself have set the record straight, have put forward a reasonable resolution of the problem, and have already stabilised the nomenclature. ‘(2) The matter of which specimen to designate as the neo- type is of secondary importance since we can never know what Say’s specimen really looked like or where it came from. The type location lies somewhere within an area of 300 000 square miles (the former Missouri Territory) and there is no host record. Therefore, for practical purposes, we do not know where Say’s specimen came from or its host species. To say that any specimen from that huge area is more likely to be like Say’s specimen than one from outside the area is debatable. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that if one selects a specimen from within the area, the probability is high that one will choose as neotype a specimen that differs greatly from the type. The variation between inornata populations occurring on Salix spp. in different drainages across the Great Plains or on differ- ent mountains or other widely separated areas where aspen grows in the “Missouri Territory’’ may be more like that encountered in island populations where isolation has caused many distinct species and subspecies to evolve. I think there is a danger that specimens collected in the “Missouri Territory” are likely to be from populations that Mayr (Animal species and evolution, 1963) calls peripheral isolates. On p. 368 Mayr says: ““Taxonomists have long been aware of the importance of these peripheral isolates and have pointed out, again and again, that major deviations from the ‘type’ of a species will most likely occur in such populations (Lorkovic 1943; Mayr & Vaurie 1948; Zimmermann 1950; and Mayr 1951, 1954)”. He goes on: “They differ from the main body of the species population and from each other in numerous, often unique, and sometimes drastic morphological, physiological, behavioural and other characteristics”. Say’s type itself may have come from a peripheral isolate and might therefore be quite different from any 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature neotype selected. I therefore believe that the choice of a “Missouri Territory” specimen is not necessarily better than the one made, and there is a high probability that it would be worse. Since we cannot with confidence choose a specimen identical with Say’s type, any choice has to be arbitrary. Since Felt & Joutel’s specimen is the type of the eastern subspecies of this insect, is similar to most specimens occurring east of the Rocky Mountains, and is already housed and protected within a great institution, it is a good and reasonable choice as neotype. (3) To designate a different neotype under the provisions of Article 75c(6) would not therefore necessarily improve things; on the other hand, it would have the disadvantage of further complicating the literature.’ ACTION BY THE SECRETARY On receipt of Dr Nord’s letter quoted above, I considered that the comments raised by members of the Commission were sufficiently answered to allow the Commission’s ruling to be promulgated. Dr Munroe commented that the matter relating to the generic name Saperda was irrelevant to the application. That may be so, but the Commission nevertheless voted to place it on the Official List. I have completed this decision by placing the name of its type species on the Official List, having first verified the type-species designation referred to by the applicant. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: inornata, Saperda, Say, 1824,J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia. vol. 3, no. 12, p. 407 Saperda Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. p. 184 scalaris, Cerambyx, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 394. The following is the original reference to a designation of type species accepted in the present Opinion: of Cerambyx scalaris Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of Saperda Fabricius, 1775, by Curtis, 1829, British Entomology, vol. 6, p. 275. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(72)16 were cast Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1155S. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 January 1980 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1156 TEREBRA VARIEGATA GRAY, 1834, (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA) CONSERVED BY THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name africana Griffith & Pidgeon, [late 1833—early 1834], as published in the binomen Terebra africana, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name variegata Gray, 25 November 1834, as published in the binomen Terebra variegata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2711. (3) The specific name africana Griffith & Pidgeon, [late 1833—early 1834], as published in the binomen TJerebra africana, and 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 1064. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1927 An application for the conservation of Terebra variegata Gray, 1834, was first received from Dr Twila Bratcher and Dr Robert Burch (Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History) on 13 April 1970. It was sent to the printer on | July 1970 and published on 29 March 1971 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27, pp. 255- 256. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to two malacological serials. The application was supported by Dr Harald Rehder (U.S. National Museum) and Dr Myra Keen (Stanford University, California). No adverse comment was received. The date of publication of Terebra africana was important in this case. Cowan, 1969, /. Soc. Biblphy nat. Hist. vol. 5, pp. 137- 140 gave the date of the corresponding part — part (39) — of Griffith & Pidgeon’s work as [March 1834]. Before the case was presented for a vote, Lt-Col. Cowan was asked if he had any further information on the date of publication of that part. He replied that the part could only be dated [late 1833—early 1834], certainly before November 1834. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 August 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1979) 14 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. at; p. 255. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Bayer, Hahn, Welch, Brinck, Bernardi, Habe, Dupuis, Corliss, Nye, Cogger, Heppell Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were sent in by Kraus, Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. No vote was returned by Binder. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: africana, Terebra, Griffith & Pidgeon, [late 1833 - early 1834], Mollusca and Radiata, in The Animal Kingdom... by Cuvier, vol. 12, part (39), explanation of plate M23, fig. 5 variegata, Terebra Gray, Nov. 25 1834, Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1834, p. 61. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)14 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No- 1156. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 January 1980 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1157 SPHEX VIATICA [SIC] LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF LECTOTYPE RULING — (1) It is hereby ruled that the valid lectotype of the nominal species Sphex viatica [sic] Linnaeus, 1758, is the specimen so designated by van der Vecht, 1958, Entomol. Ber. vol. 18, p. 47. (2) The specific name viaticus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sphex viatica [sic], and as defined by the lectotype accepted in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Speci- fic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2712. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2061 On | February 1974 a paper was received from Dr C.W. Sabrosky asking the Commission to answer two general questions and also to decide which of two possible specimens — one desig- nated by Richards, 1935, and the other by van der Vecht, 1958 — is the valid lectotype of Sphex viaticus Linnaeus, 1758. (That species provided an example of the two general questions.) The paper was sent to the printer on 5 April 1974 and published on 20 September 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 159-163. No use of the plenary powers was involved. The late Dr. Lemche criticised the application for not offering clear alternatives for a vote by the Commission; Dr Sabrosky agreed that the members of the Commis- sion should be asked to vote either for the specimen designated by Richards, or for the specimen designated by van der Vecht. No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 August 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1979)15 either for the specimen designated by Richards or for the specimen designated by van der Vecht as lectotype of Sphex viaticus. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting was as follows: tor the specimen designated by Richards — Habe for the specimen designated by van der Vecht -- eighteen (18) votes, received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Bull. zvol. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97 Hahn, Welch, Brinck, Bernardi, Corliss, Nye, Heppell, Cogger, Bayer. Dupuis abstained from voting. Late votes for the van der Vecht specimen were received from Kraus, Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. No vote was returned by Binder. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their votes: Sabrosky: ‘Day, 1979, Buil. brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Entomol., vol. 38, p. 16, has reviewed the complex history of Sphex viaticus.’ Hahn: ‘| vote for designation by van der Vecht, 1958, for the following reasons: (1) It is apparently not certain that the specimen designated by Richards, 1935, was a member of Linnaeus’s type series; (2) In Dr Sabrosky’s footnote, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, p. 161, it is clearly stated that it was not Professor Richards’s intention to designate a lectotype; (3) in contrast to that specimen, that of van der Vecht undoubtedly belongs to the type series of viaticus; (4) Linnaeus, 1761, and Villers, 1789, have not designated a lecto- type, as far as I can see from Dr Sabrosky’s text; Professor Richards unequivocally says that he did not do it in 1935. Therefore, under Article 74 of the Code, van der Vecht, 1958 was the first author who has designated a valid lectotype, in the sentence quoted by Dr Sabrosky in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, p. 160, lines 6-7.’ Brinck: ‘Formally, this is a rather simple case: (1) viaticus Linnaeus was a composite species, and (2) van der Vecht validly designated a lectotype. I have voted accordingly. But from a taxonomic point of view I hope this will not have disastrous con- sequences, in changing the name for a very well-known taxon. Compare Lindroth’s opinion that Linnean names that denote com- psite species and have two or more meanings should be suppressed or synonymised.’ Dupuis: ‘Je ne suis pas suffisamment informé pour pouvoir voter. Personne ne semble s’étre soucié des conséquences des choix proposés (1) sur l’acception des noms génériques typifiés par viaticus, (2) sur les usages courants.’ Cogger: ‘I do not believe that Richards’s 1935 citation of an extant specimen as the type of Sphex viaticus Linnaeus, 1758, can constitute a lectotype designation. Such a loose interpretation of Article 74a could have quite appalling consequences in zoological nomenclature.’ 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ORIGINAL REFERENCES The original reference for a name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion is: viatica [sic], Sphex, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 570. The reference to a lectotype designation accepted in the present Opinion is: for Sphex viaticus Linnaeus, 1758, by van der Vecht, 1958, Entomol. Berichten, vol. 18, p. 47. CERTIFICATE 1 hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)15 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 on Zoological Nomen- clature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1157. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 January 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 OPINION 1158 LITOMOSA VITEAE RULED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TO BE THE CORRECT ORIGINAL SPELLING OF LITOMOSA WITE KREPKOGORSKAYA, 1933 (NEMATODA) RULING ~ (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the original spelling wite Krepkogorskaya, 1933, as published in the binomen Litomosa wite, is hereby suppressed; (b) the spelling viteae js hereby ruled to be the correct original spelling of that name. in (1) (b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2713. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the (a) wite Krepkogorskaya, 1933, as published in the bino- men Litomosa wite, and as suppressed under the plenary Powers in (1) (a) above (Name Number 1065): (b) witei McIntosh & McIntosh, 1935, as published in the binomen Litosoma witei (an unjustified emendation of Litomosa viteae Krepkogorskaya, 1933) (Name Number 1066): (c) vitei Sassuchin, Tiflow & Schulz, 1935, as published in the binomen Litosoma vitei (an incorrect subsequent Spelling of Litomosa viteae Krepkogorskaya, 1933) (Name Number 1067); (d) vite Skrjabin & Shikhobalova, 1945, as published in the binomen Litosoma vite (an unjustified emendation of Litomosa viteae Krepkogorskaya, 1933) (Name Number 1068). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2203 An application on behalf of the World Health Organisation for a ruling on the correct spelling of the filarian worm generally known as Dipetalonema viteae was first received from Dr Bro.E: Duke (Chief. Filarial Infections Division Of Malaria and Other Parasitic Diseases, WHO, Geneva) on 26 May 1976. After some 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature correspondence, the application was signed by Dr Duke and five of his colleagues and submitted formally on 28 October 1976. The urgency of the case was stressed because of the prevailing confusion in the spelling of the name of this species, which is widely used in medical parasitology for screening filaricidal drugs. An agreed text was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and published on 31 July 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 51-54. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to eight other serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 August 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1979) 16 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 52-53. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Vokes, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Welch, Brinck, Bernardi, Habe, Dupuis, Corliss, Nye, Cogger (proposals (1) and (2) only) Negative Votes — five (5): Holthuis, Sabrosky, Hahn, Heppell, Bayer. A late negative vote was received from Kraus and late affir- mative votes from Halvorsen and Starobogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. No vote was returmed by Binder. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘The arguments against using the original spelling for the specific name seem very feeble. It seems best to stick to the original spelling, unless the Commission wants to be swamped with similar requests’. Sabrosky: ‘Most authors seem not to have realised that wire, after Dr Wite, is a noun in apposition, Article | 1g(i)(2), and does not need to be altered to the genitive case’. Hahn: ‘| can see no reason to change the original spelling. That name can be understood to be a noun in apposition. To change the “w” to a “vy” is an unjustified emendation. Authors are obliged neither to use the genitive form of a personal name, nor to use Only one transliteration from the Cyrillic alphabet’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 Bernardi: ‘Il n’y a pas lieu d’hésiter entre un point mineur d’orthographe originale et l’intérét d’une nomenclature stable pour une espéce d’importance médicale.’ Cogger: ‘While agreeing with the intent of the application, | cannot agree with the solution proposed, which seems unnecessarily complex. Certainly I object to unjustified emendations being placed on the Official Index when it does not seem necessary to do so. However, I would be prepared to vote for parts (1) and (2) of the application if the majority of the members of the Commission favoured that course. But I vote against part (3) of the application.’ Heppell: ‘The applicants have demonstrated that there has been no consensus of orthography, and the original spelling is evidently intentional and acceptable. The important matter is for the Commission to stabilise the spelling one way or the other.’ Bayer: ‘I see no merit in the request to suppress this legally established name, which was proposed in the form of a noun in apposition and spelled in accordance with the surname of the person honoured as given in the original German text; the Cyrillic spelling of the lady’s name was not given. There was no legal basis for correcting “w” to “v” or for altering the name to a genitive form, masculine or feminine. I oppose the request to suppress a name, legally proposed in good faith, because of variations that have resulted from subsequent tampering. I may also point out that the original combination published by Krepkogorskaya in 1933 was Litomosa wite, not Litosoma, and the spellings cited in pro- posals (1)a, (2) and (3)a-d are wrong.’ [This has been attended to in the present ruling. R.V.M.] ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to names placed on an Official List and Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: vite, Litosoma, Skrjabin & Shikhobalova, 1948, Opredelitel’ parazi- ticheskikh nematod, spiruraty i filyareti, Moscow, p. 227 viteae, Dipetalonema, Bain, 1967, Ann. Parasitol. hum. comp. vol. 42, p.212 vitei, Litosoma, Sassuchin, Tiflow & Schulz, 1935, Zeitschr. Parasitenk., vol. 7, p. 636 wite, Litomosa, Krepkogorskaya, 1933, Zool. Anzeiger, vol. 102, p. 88 witei, Litosoma, McIntosh & McIntosh, 1935, Proc. helminthol. Soc. Washington vol. 2, p. 62. 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)16 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1158. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 15 January 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1038 OPINION 1159 LITTORINA (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): AUTHOR AND DATE OF THIS GENERIC NAME, AND TYPE SPECIES OF THIS NOMINAL GENUS DETERMINED BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: (a) the generic name Littorina was made available by Férussac, 1822; (b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus Littorina Férussac, 1822, prior to the designation of Turbo littoreus, Linnaeus, 1758, by Anton, (1838) are hereby set aside. (2) The generic name Littorina Férussac, 1822 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Anton, (1838), Turbo littoreus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2106. (3) The specific name littoreus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Turbo littoreus (specific name of type species of Littorina Férussac, 1822) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2714. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1901 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for Littorina Férussac, 1822, was first received from Dr D. Kadolsky (Geological and Palaeontological Institute, University of Bonn, BRD) on 2 September 1969. After some correspondence a text was agreed on 18 November 1969. It was sent to the printer on 18 December 1969 and published on 5 June 1970 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27, pp. 51-54. No use of the plenary powers was requested. The application was supported by Dr J. Rosewater (U.S. National Museum) but was criticised by Dr Holthuis and Mr Heppell. Mr Heppell’s comment, which was published on 3 December 1970 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 30, pp. 131-132, contained proposals for the use of the plenary powers. Public notice of the possible use of those powers in the case was accordingly given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to two mala- cological serials. Dr Holthuis’s comment, and further criticism by Dr W.O. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Cernohorsky, was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27, p. 210. A further comment by Mr Heppell was published in vol. 28, p. 76. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 August 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1979)13 on the proposals set out in the following note that accom- panied the voting paper: AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE GENERIC NAME LITTORINA (GASTROPODA) AND FIXATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF THAT NOMINAL GENUS NOTE TO ACCOMPANY V.P.(79)13 In his original application (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27: 51-54, June 1970), Dr Kadolsky asked that the generic name Littorina Férussac, 1822 be placed on the Official List with Turbo littoreus Linnaeus, 1758 as its type species by designation by Blainville, 1828. Subsequent comments by malacologists support these aims but dispute Dr Kadolsky’s proposed means. Are the plenary powers to be used or not, and if they are, to what extent? Dr Rosewater (U.S. National Museum) alone agreed with Dr Kadolsky that his aims could be achieved without the use of the plenary powers. Mr Heppell (vol. 27: 131-132) said: ‘Férussac certainly leaves us in no doubt as to what he understood by his new subgenus’ [of Turbo Linnaeus, 1758] but questioned whether it satisfied the criteria of availability. In my view, it does not: on: xi it appears in the French vernacular ‘littorine’ not directly accompanied by a description, definition, or indication; on : xxiv it appears as a bare name, Littorina. Nevertheless, there is enough information associated with the name in discussions of other names for the Commission to rule it available under the plenary powers. There are, however. no species distinctly referred to this genus in this work and its type species under the Code is Littorina basterotii Payraudeau, 1826, by subsequent monotypy, generally considered a junior synonym of Turbo neritoides Linnaeus, 1758. Hence, T. littoreus Linnaeus, 1758, can only be fixed as type species of Littorina by the use of the plenary powers. These two conclusions are implicitly accepted by Dr W.O. Cernohorsky and Dr L.B. Holthuis (vol. 27: 210). In a further comment (vol. 28: 76) Mr Heppell noted that Turbo littoreus Linnaeus, 1758, had been designated as type Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 species of Littorina not by Blainville, 1828 (who spoke only of ‘Littorine’?) but by Anton, 1839, Verzeichniss der Conchylien [the date of that work has been shown to be (1838) by Kadolsky, 1971, Arch. Molluskenk, vol. 101: 193]. Mr Heppell has asked that the last sentence of this comment be replaced by the following: ‘The availability of Neritoides Meuschen has been demonstrated by Kadolsky, Arch. Molluskenk. vol. 101: 192-193. Neritrema Récluz, 1869 (type species, by subsequent designation by Dall, 1909, Turbo obtusatus L., 1758) may be used for Neritoides Brown.’ This, however, bears only on a collateral point, not on the central issue. A correct presentation of the requests put forward by Dr Kadolsky as criticised by Mr Heppell is, therefore, that the Commission should: (1) use its plenary powers (a) to rule that the generic name Littorina was made available by Férussac, 1822; (b) to set aside all designations of type species for Littorina Férussac, 1822, prior to the designation of Turbo littoreus Linnaeus, 1758 by Anton, (1838); (2) place the generic name Littorina Férussac, 1822 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Anton, (1838), Turbo littoreus Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name littoreus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Turbo littoreus (specific name of type species of Littorina Férussac, 1822) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting on V.P.(79)13 was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Vokes, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Willink, Tyjapitzin, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Bayer, Hahn, Welch, Brinck, Bernardi, Habe, Corliss, Nye, Heppell Negative votes — none (0). Dupuis abstained from voting. Late affirmative votes were returned by Kraus and Halvorsen and a late negative vote by Staro- bogatov. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Binder and Cogger. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Dupuis: ‘Je vote contre le “wording” proposé. D’abord parce qu'il y a un lapsus (Paludina au lieu de Littorina) [ a number of members drew attention to this error in the note accompanying 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the voting paper; it has been corrected in the Ruling. R.V.M.]}. Ensuite, si on admet que Littorina est available, c’est bien parce que l’on admet que “‘littorine” (fr.) = Littorina (latin). Pourquoi ne pas admettre dés lors (en vertu des pleins pouvoirs, y compris la faculté de discernement) la désignation par Blainville du type de “littorine’” (fr.) comme valable pour Littorina (latin)? Toute procédure casuiste pour attribuer 4 des successeurs les mérites d’un auteur est d’une mesquinerie qui porte le plus grand préjudice a la Commission.’ Starobogatov (with late negative vote): ‘We must not change the main principles of the Code. In this case it is evident that Littorina neritoides and Algaroda littorea are in distinct genera.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: littoreus, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 761 Littorina Férussac, 1822, Tabl. syst. anim. moll., pp. XI (16.2. 1822), XXIV (13.4.1822) fide Kennard, 1942, Proc. malac. Soc. London, vol. 25, pp. 12-17, 105-118. The following is the original reference to a subsequent desig- nation of type species accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Turbo littoreus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of Littorina Férussac, 1822, by Anton, (1838), Verzeichniss der Conchylien, p. 52. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)13 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1159. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 21 January 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 DIRECTION 108 CORRECTION OF NAME NO 2087 IN THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY: FOR MUREX STRIATA GMELIN, 1791, READ VOLUTA STRIATA GMELIN, 1791 RULING — It is hereby directed that that part of the Ruling in Opinion 740 that concerns Name Number 2087 in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is to be amended as follows: For striata, Murex, Gmelin, 1791, read striata, Voluta, Gmelin, 1791. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.) 1521 In January 1975 Dr Walter Cernohorsky (Auckland Museum, New Zealand) drew attention to an error in Opinion 740 whereby the name of a species of MURICIDAE had been placed on the Official List instead of the name of a species of VOLUTIDAE (Gastropoda): Murex striatus Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat. ed. 13, vol. 1, p. 3530 (wrongly spelt striata) in error for Voluta striata Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat. ed. 13, vol. 1, p. 3455. Dr Harald Rehder, the original applicant in the case that resulted in Opinion 740 was told, and immediately confirmed Dr Cemohorsky’s impression. He prepared a note which was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 143. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 20 August 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1979)8 for or against Dr Rehder’s proposal. At the close of the voting period on 20 November 1979 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Vokes, Holthuis, Alvarado, Hahn, Mroczkowski, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Welch, Brinck, Bernardi, Bayer, Habe, Corliss, Nye, Cogger, Heppell Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Negative Votes — none (0). Dupuis voted to postpone the matter (his comment is quoted below). Late affirmative votes were sent in by Kraus, Halvorsen and Starobogatoy. Ride was on leave of absence. No vote was returned by Binder. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Dupuis: ‘Si VOpinion 740, qui péche par un point mineur, doit étre amendée, il est évident que l’Opinion 1029, qui péche par plusieurs points de fait, doit l’étre aussi. Donc, si les remarques Dupuis-Lescure du 21 mai 1976 concernant l’Opinion 1029 sont publiées avant ou en méme temps que l’amendement ici proposé pour l’Opinion 740, je vote pour cet amendement. Sinon, je vote Pajournement jusqu’a ce que la Commission ait été également et publiquement saisie des amendements factuels proposés a ses Opinions.’ [Letters from the Secretary to Professor Dupuis dated 1 June 1976 and 23 May 1977 and discussing Opinion 1029 have not yet been answered. R.V.M.] Heppell: “This is a matter of fact, not opinion. The Commis- sion should not have to be asked whether or not to correct an obvious error in the factual component of a Ruling.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCE The original reference to the correct name now entered on an Official List by the present Ruling is: strioca, Voluta, Gmelin, 1791, Syst. Nat. ed. 13, vol. 1, p. 3455. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)8 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, is truly recorded in the present Direction 108. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 January 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 MACROCEPHALITES (SUTNER MS) ZITTEL, 1884 AND AMMONITES MACROCEPHALUS SCHLOTHEIM, 1813 (CEPHALOPODA: AMMONOIDEA): REVIVED PROPOSALS. Z.N.(S.)401 (see vol. 2, pp. 170-179) by J.H. Callomon (University College, London) Introduction The interpretation of the stratigraphically and zoologically important genus Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 and its type species have been uncertain because the failure of the founders from the early days of palaeontology to designate types has resulted in much serious confusion. There have been three modern attempts to sort this problem out: by Buckman, 1922, Type Ammonites, vol. 4, pls. 334A, B and legends; 1929, Canada Dept Mines, Bull. nat. Mus. Canada no. 58 (Geol. Ser. no. 50), pp. 1-5, 8; Arkell, 1951, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 2, p. 170; and Callomon, 1971, Palaeontol., vol. 14, p. 114. The last of these provided all the necessary solutions based on new information and fully in accord with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1964) then and now in force. Never- theless, some authors continue to follow different interpretations in important revisions: e.g. Maubeuge, 1975, Tatigkeitsber. naturf. Ges. Baselld vol. 29, p. 126; Thierry, 1978, Mém, géol. Univ. Dijon, vol. 4. These are based largely on a misconception arising out of the proposals by Arkell, 1951, op. cit. to the Commission but never subsequently acted upon: contrary to the belief expressed by Maubeuge and Thierry, the Commission has given no Ruling on this, and no Opinion has so far been published. This is fortunate, because not only were some of Arkell’s proposals themselves based on an erroneous interpretation of the previous work by Buckman, 1922, op. cit.; but a specimen was put forward as type which is itself lost. Arkell’s proposals still formally stand before the Commission and add to the confusion. The Commission is therefore asked to resolve this uncertainty by adding to the Official Lists of Generic and Specific Names in Zoology the names Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 and Ammonites macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813, defined by their types as described by Callomon, 1971, op. cit. The detailed evidence and exhaustive arguments presented there may be summarized as . follows. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature THE TYPE SPECIES OF MACROCEPHALITES ZITTEL, 1884. 2. The genus was founded for some 40 species, of which seven were cited by name; there is no type species by original desig- nation. 3. The first author validly to select a type species was Lemoine, 1910, Ann. Paleont. vol. 5, p. 151(15) in a major revision of the genus: ... . “le génotype est Macr. macrocephalus Schlot.; ..... A subsequent attempt by Buckman, 1922; 1929, p. 2, op. cit., to designate another species, namely Macrocephalites macro- cephalus Zittel 1884 non Schlotheim, may therefore be dismissed, and is in any case invalid because it confused a specific taxon with a nominal species as type of a genus. 4. Lemoine’s designation therefore stands, and the only residual technical uncertainty relates to the date of availability of Schlotheim’s name. There are two possibilities: 1813, Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte der Versteinerungen in geognosticher Hinsicht, in Leonhard, C.G.: Taschenbuch fiir die gesamte Mineralogie, vol. 7, p. 70; and 1820, Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Stand- punkt durch die Beschreibung einer Sammlung versteinerten und fossiler Uberreste des Thier- und Pflanzenreichs der Vorwelt erlautert (Gotha), p. 70. However, the earlier of these has never been seriously questioned by any revising author in the last 150 years. THE TYPE SPECIMEN OF AMMONITES MACROCEPHALUS SCHLOTHEIM, 1813. 5. The original description of this species referred to a single specimen figured in the literature, by Baier, 1757, Joannis Jacobi Baieri Monumenta Rerum Petrificatarum Praecipia Oricto- graphiae Noricae, Niiremburg, pl. 12, fig. 8; refigured by Callomon, 1971, p. 118, text-fig. 1, op. cit. Circumstantial evidence in the original publication and subsequent new evidence obtained in the first modern attempt actually to consult Schlotheim’s collection (Callomon, 1971) shows, however, that the type series was more extensive and included at least one other specimen in Schlotheim’s collection (Art. 72b). The specimen depicted by Baier was there- fore at best a syntype, and there was no holotype. Even if subse- quent references to Baier’s specimen as “holotype” or simply “type”, e.g. by Blake, 1905, The Fauna of the Cornbrash, Monogr. Palaeontogr. Soc. London, p. 43, were accepted as technically a lectotype designation, the problem would not be resolved, for (i) Baier’s specimen is lost; and (ii) his figure is only barely interpret- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 able, in the sense that all that can be deduced from it is the consider- able number of species the specimen it depicts did not belong to, leaving the almost equally considerable number of other species now widely recognizable as distinct that it well could have belonged to. 6. Arising from these uncertainties, and despite some claims to the contrary, it was shown by Callomon that no alter- native consensus of interpretation based on some other specimen or figure had grown in the literature subsequently, most authors cir- cumventing the problem by simply avoiding the use of the name macrocephalus altogether, other than in a very broad or general sense. 7. The one serious attempt to provide such an alternative was by Buckman, 1922, 1929, op. cit., who took the view that Zittel’s inclusion in his list of species belonging to his new genus Macrocephalites of Ammonites macrocephalus referred to a distinct species, M. macrocephalus Zittel, 1884, non Amm. macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813, i.e. a taxon whose name was homonymous with that of Schlotheim’s taxon when the latter was transferred to the genus Macrocephalites, but not synonymous. Despite Lemoine’s previous selection (1910) of Amm. macrocephalus Schlotheim of which Buckman may of course have been unaware, he sought then to select Zittel’s species as type species (‘genotype’), and renamed it Macrocephalites verus to lift the homonymy; and he sought to designate the specimen figured in a drawing by Zittel, 1884, Handbuch der Palaeontologie, I, 2. Band, fig. 655, reproduced by Callomon 1971, text-fig. 3 — ‘Oppel-Zittel specimen’, as holotype. He therefore figured a specimen (‘Oppel-Buckman specimen’) that had been sent to him at his request from the Oppel collection in Munich by Dacqué as allegedly the specimen on which Zittel’s figure had been based, and labelled it quite explicitly as holotype of M. verus Buckman, 1922. It transpired subsequently that he had been sent the wrong specimen (Buckman, 1929, op. cit., p. 8, written in 1924), and that the holotype of M. verus Buckman was not the specimen figured by Zittel. Of this Arkell was unaware in his appli- cation of 1951 to the Commission to have the (lost) Oppel-Buckman specimen made type of M. macrocephalus under its Plenary Powers. Thus, these attempts to shift the interpretation of M. macrocephalus on to the specimen figured by Zittel led to good new figures of a poor specimen of no status since lost, and added nothing to the original figure of dubious quality and unknown magnification of a specimen of unknown origin which was in fact not then redescribed until much later, in 1971. 8. There are thus four specimens as conceivable candidates for the title of type of Amm. macrocephalus: 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature A. Baier’s specimen. Only figure barely interpretable; syntype or lectotype according to the strictness of interpretation of Blake’s wording (see below); lost. B. Schlotheim’s specimen figured and fully described by Callomon, 1971, op. cit., of excellent quality, and conforming quite well with the figure of Baier’s specimen, as far as this is possible; syntype if in the collection in 1813 (most probable, and unlikely to be refutable), metatype (informal secondary type, a specimen identified as belonging to a species by its author but outside the original type series) if added later. C. Oppel-Zittel specimen. Excellent quality, but not properly figured or described until 1971; substantially different from both the Baier specimen A and the Schlotheim specimen B; not a syntype, nor a metatype, nor a topotype, nor a choro- type (same stratigraphical level but not exactly the same locality as a primary type). D. Oppel-Buckman specimen, holotype of Macrocephalites verus Buckman. Poor quality; well figured by Buckman in mistake for C above; proposed for designation as type under the plenary powers by Arkell in the same mistaken belief; lacking all status as in the case of C above; lost. 9. Following the arguments outlined above, the Schlotheim specimen was therefore chosen as the type specimen by Callomon, IPT ipod 20 The only residual decision to be made was whether to regard Blake’s wording (1905, op. cit.) as constituting a valid lectotype designation of Baier’s lost specimen. He wrote: “‘7Jype. — Schlotheim, having given no description of the species as distinct from the genus, and Baier, to whom he refers as above, having also left the shell nameless and without description, we are thrown back on the figure he gives as representing the shell called by Schlotheim Am. macrocephalus . . . This, therefore, must be taken as the type of Macrocephalites macrocephalus.” The word “type” could be construed to mean holotype or lectotype, but as the sense of the whole statement is more to fix a basis for interpreting the taxon rather than to show that the basis had necessarily to be a single specimen, the sense of lectotype was chosen. Loss of Baier’s speci- men means therefore loss of the lectotype, and choice of Schlotheim’s specimen, subsequently found originally to have been a syntype, to replace it makes it a neotype, fully in accord with Art. 75 of the Code, and calling for no action by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. 10. The Commission is therefore asked: (1) to place the generic name Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 (gender: masculine), type species Ammonites Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 macrocephalus, Schlotheim, 1813 by subsequent designation by Lemoine, 1910, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; to place the specific name macrocephalus Schlotheim, 1813 (as published in the binomen Ammonites macrocephalus) (specific name of type species of Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the name being based on the specimen described, figured and designated neotype by Callomon (1971, op. cit., plates 15, 16,Schlotheim collection, Humboldt University, Berlin. Quenstedt catalogue No. A26). 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NETTASTOMELLA CARPENTER, 1865 (MOLLUSCA: BIVALVIA: PHOLADIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)1054 By Eugene V. Coan (Department of Geology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A.) and George L. Kennedy (U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025, U.S.A.) The molluscan bivalve genus Netastoma was proposed by Carpenter in 1864 (529, 540, 605, 635, 637, 684; [1872 reprint, 15, 26, 91, 121, 123, 170]) with ‘“‘Netastoma Darwinii Sby.” [Pholas darwinii G.B. Sowerby, II, 1849, pp. 490, pl. 107, figs. 76-77; type locality “‘Chiloe” (Island, Chile)] as its type species (by original monotypy). 2. In proposing Netastoma, Carpenter had before him mostly (or perhaps only) specimens of the northeastern Pacific N. rostrata (Valenciennes) [Pholas rostrata Valenciennes, in Du Petit-Thouars, 1846, pl. 24, figs. 4,4a], a taxon that he considered “is probably = Netastoma Darwinnii, Sby. jun.” (Carpenter, 1864, p. 529; 1872 reprint, p. 15). If Carpenter had serious doubts about whether N. darwinii actually came from Chile, as stated by Sowerby, he did not express them, preferring only to disclaim responsibility for the original locality by specifying “Quoted from S.[outh] A. [merica]”’ (Carpenter, 1864, p. 637; 1872 reprint, p. 121). Carpenter (1865, p. 203; 1872 reprint, p. 251) later noted that “The original specimen is said to have come from Chili [sic].” Because the two species are congeneric, an issue that has never been in question, it would seem best to regard the South American taxon as the type species of the genus. 3. Within months of proposing Netastoma, Carpenter (1865, p. 202; 1872 reprint, p. 250) proposed Nettastomella as a substitute name, believing the former to be preoccupied by Nettastoma Rafinesque (1810, p. 66), a fish. 4. From 1865 to 1955 all references to this taxon have used Nettastomella, including the monographic revision of the family by Turner (1955, p. 141-145). 5. Vokes (1956, p. 768; 1967, p. 328), recognizing the implications of the limits drawn on generic homonymy (Article 56), recommended returning to Netastoma because it was not pre- occupied by Nettastoma Rafinesque. Whereas most authors continued using Nettastomella, including two important treatments of the family (Turner, 1969, p. N720; Kennedy, 1974, p. 65), several newer references have not (e.g., McLean, 1969; Keen & Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 Coan, 1974; Coan & Carlton, 1975). 6. In the interest of maintaining nomenclatural stability, and in keeping with the preponderance of relevant literature, the Commission is hereby requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Netastoma Carpenter, 1864, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo- nymy; (2) to place the generic name Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865 (gender: feminine), type species, through Netastoma Carpenter, 1864, Pholas darwinii G.B. Sowerby II, 1849, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name darwinii Sowerby, 1849, as published in the binomen Pholas darwinii (specific name of type species of Nettastomella Carpenter, 1865) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Netastoma Carpenter, 1864, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES CARPENTER, P. P., 1864. Supplementary report on the present state of our knowledge with regard to the Mollusca of the west coast of North America. Rep. br. Assoc. Adv. Sci. for 1863, pp. 517-686. (post 1 August 1864) [reprinted in Carpenter, 1872] . 1865. Diagnoses of new forms of Mollusca from the Vancouver district. Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1865 (1), pp. 201-204, 4 figs. (June 1865) [reprinted in Carpenter, 1872]. 1872. The mollusks of western North America. Smithson. [Inst.] Misc. Coll. vol. 10 (252), pp. xii + 1-325 + 13-121. (December 1872). COAN, E. V. & CARLTON, J. T., 1975. Phylum Mollusca: Bivalvia. Jn Smith, R. I. and Carlton, J. T., eds., Light’s Manual: Intertidal invertebrates of the central California coast [3rd edition]. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, and London (University of California Press), pp. 543-578, pls. 124-132.(10 March 1975). DU PETIT-THOUARS, A., 1846. Voyage autour du Monde sur la Frégate la Vénus, pendant les Années 1836-1839; Atlas de Zoologie. Mollusques. Paris (Gide et Cie), [no text] pls. 1-24. KEEN, A. M. & COAN, E. V., 1974. Marine molluscan genera of western North America: An illustrated key [2nd edition]. Stanford, California (Stanford University Press), pp. vi + 1-208, numerous figs. (2 May 1974). 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature KENNEDY, G. L., 1974. West American Cenozoic Pholadidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Mem. San Diego Soc. nat. Hist. vol. 8, pp. 2-127, figs. 1-103, frontis. (28 June 1974). McLEAN, J. H., 1969. Marine shells of southern California. Los Angeles County Mus. nat. Hist., Sci. Ser. no. 24, Zool. no. 11, pp. 1-104, figs. 1-54. (October 1969). RAFINESQUE-SCHMALTZ, C. S., 1810. Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di Animali e Piante della Sicilia con varie osservazioni sopra i medesimi. Palermo, 105 p., 20 pls. [not seen] SOWERBY, G. B. II., 1849. Monograph of the genus Pholas. In Sowerby, G. B. II, ed., Thesaurus conchyliorum; Or monographs of genera of shells, vol. 2(10), pp. 485-500, pls. 102-108. London (Sowerby). TURNER, R. D., 1955. The family Pholadidae in the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific. Part II — Martesiinae, Jouannetiinae and Xylophaginae. Johnsonia, vol. 3 (34), pp. 65-160, pls. 35-93. (29 March 1955). 1969. Superfamily Pholadacea.Jn Moore, R. C., ed., Treatise on inverte- brate paleontology, Part N (Mollusca), 6 (Bivalvia) (2). Lawrence, Kansas (Geol. Soc. America and Univ. Kansas), pp. N702-N742, figs. N162-214. VOKES, H. E., 1956. Some pelecypod illustrations of the effect of the Copen- hagen decision defining the limits of generic homonymy. J. Paleontol. vol. 30 (3), pp. 765-768. (May 1956). _______ 1967. Genera of the Bivalvia: A systematic and bibliographic catalogue. Bull. Amer. Paleontol. vol. 51 (232), pp. 103-394. (16 June 1967). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 HETERELIS COSTA, 1887 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR CONCLUDING THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1175 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature An application by the late Professor J. Chester Bradley for the fixation of the type species of Heterelis Costa, 1887, was first received on 12 November 1956. Later, that application was with- drawn and a revised application by J.G. Betrem, J. Chester Bradley and C. Jacot-Guillaume was received on | June 1962. This was sent to the printer on 27 July 1962 and published on 26 April 1963 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 20, pp. 204-205. 2. The essence of the case is an error of citation by Costa when he established Heterelis. He cited only one species, as ‘E. villosa Fab. Scolia villosa Fab. Ent. syst. Il, p. 227’. However, Fabricius had there written not ‘Scolia villosa’, but ‘T. villosa’, i.e. a Tiphia. It is clear that Costa intended Sphex villosa Fabricius, for long incorrectly treated as the valid name of Scolia quinquecincta Fabricius. This is the specific name now long used for a common south European scoliid wasp; Costa cited its name in the synonymy of ‘Heterelis villosa’ and there can be no doubt that that was the species before him. 3. The case should, therefore, have been treated as one of a misidentified type species under Article 70a (i) and the use of the plenary powers should have been requested to designate Scolia quinquecincta Fabricius, 1793, as type species. Unfortunately that was not done. In consequence, the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was never advertised. 4. When the Commission came to vote on the case, in Voting Paper (1964) 27, it gave 20 affirmative votes and three negative votes. Three late affirmative votes were received. The majority was thus more than sufficient to use the plenary powers, if only their use had been requested and the necessary public notice given. 5. No comment was received before the vote took place, but the following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Mayr: ‘The application is faulty. Heterelis has no junior synonym that has been in use for 50 years or more and therefore does not qualify under Art. 23b. The only decision the Commission needs to take is to fix the correct type species, e.g. villosa of Costa (non Fab.) = quinquecincta.’ Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Simpson (voting against): ‘On evidence submitted, I believe that stability would be better served by rejecting this unused name than by its resurrection in a sense that cannot be given it under the letter of the Code and may be rejected by sticklers for strict priority.’ Sabrosky: ‘This is clearly a simple case of a misidentified type species, to be decided by the use of the plenary powers. See Article 70a.’ 6. As the case now stands, the strong majority vote of the Commission in favour of stabilising Heterelis with Scolia quinque- cincta Fabricius, 1793, as its type species, cannot be published as an Opinion because the proper procedures for advertising the possible use of the plenary powers were not followed. I accordingly now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Heterelis Costa, 1887, and, having done so, to desig- nate Scolia quinquecincta Fabricius, 1793, as type species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Heterelis Costa, 1887 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Scolia quinquecincta Fabricius, 1793, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name guinquecincta Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Scolia quinquecincta (specific name of type species of Heterelis Costa, 1887) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 7. The possible use of the plenary powers in this case will be advertised. If no objection to the above proposals is received within the prescribed six-months period, 1 propose to publish the Commis- sion’s ruling without taking a fresh vote on the case. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 LEPTINOTARSA CHEVROLAT, 1837 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): REVISED PROPOSALS FOR CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2048 By Richard E. White (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) In 1974 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 144) Richard L. Jacques, Jr., and I asked the Commission to suppress the generic name Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837, so as to conserve the generic name Leptinotarsa “Stal, 1858”. Leptinotarsa is the name that is in general use for the Chrysomelid genus that includes the well known potato pest the Colorado Potato Beetle, LZ. decemlineata (Say), and it is clearly important to maintain it. The generic name is used in many hundreds of economic publications, and a change of nomen- clature would cause great confusion. 2. As part of our former application we accepted the Chevrolat citation of juncta Germar beneath Polygramma, in Dejean, Cat. Col., triosiéme édit., part 5, p. 397 [5 July 1837] as constituting an indication, with the basis being Article 16a(v) of the Code. (I follow Barber, H.S. & Bridwell, J.C., 1940, Bull. Brooklyn entomol. Soc., vol. 35, pp. 1-12 concerning the date of that edition of Dejean’s catalogue.) It has been brought to my attention that by the same reasoning, the citation of alternata Klug’ (as a synonym of ‘xanthogramma Dej.’ under Polygramma on p. 398) can be interpreted as referring to the available name Agra alternata Klug, 1834, Jahrb. Insektenk. vol. 1 (4), p. 60, of the CARABIDAE, and the citation of ‘cinctipennis Chevrolat’ beneath Leptinotarsa (p. 397) can be interpreted as referring to Altica cinctipennis Chevrolat, 1834, Coleopt. Méxique, vol. 3, no. 86. The latter species now remains in the subfamily ALTICINAE (of CHRYSOMELIDAE) in the genus Asphaera. 3. Despite the extreme unlikelihood that Chevrolat would have placed a member of the CARABIDAE in the CHRYSOME- LIDAE, and the unlikelihood that he would have placed a flea beetle among the CHRYSOMELINAE, I am not able to prove that the citations in the Dejean list of ‘alternata Klug’ and ‘cinctipennis Chevrolat’ do not refer to those available names. Therefore, I must accept them on the same basis that I have accepted juncta Germar. In the earlier application it was assumed that Leptino- tarsa had been made available by Stal, 1858, Ofvers. Kong. Vetensk. Forh., vol. 15: 475. However, acceptance of cinctipennis Chevrolat as referring to an available name makes Leptinotarsa available as from 1837, with Chevrolat as its author and L. cinctipennis as its Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature type species by monotypy. The consequence would be that Leptinotarsa would be transferred to a genus of flea beetles and the unused generic name Polygramma would have to be adopted for the Colorado Potato Beetle. Stal attributed the generic name to Chevrolat and included nine species in the genus; cinctipennis was not among them, and none was designated as type species. Motschulsky, however (1860, in Schrenck, Reisen Forsch. Amur- Lande, vol. 2(2): 182) designated “‘Lept. Heydenii Chev.’’, one of the species included by Stal, as type species, and it is in that sense that the name has been applied for the last 120 years. Leptinotarsa heydenii Chevrolat, in Dejean, 1837: 397, is a nomen nudum, and the name was first made available by Stl, 1858, loc. cit. 5. Since Chrysomela juncta Germar, 1824, is also a species of Leptinotarsa as now understood, action by the Commission to validate the latter name in that sense will make it and Polygramma simultaneously published synonyms. Then — but not until then — it would be logically possible for any zoologist to select Poly- gramma as the valid name for the genus in question. In order to prevent this possibility from arising, the Commission is asked to suppress Polygramma. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers (a) 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; (b) to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 made prior to the designation by Motschulsky, 1860, of Leptinotarsa heydenii Stal, 1858, as type species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent desig- nation by Motschulsky, 1860, as ratified under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Leptinotarsa heydenii Stal, 1858, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name heydenii Stal, 1858, as pub- lished in the binomen Leptinotarsa heydenii (specific name of type species of Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE HOMONYMY OF IOTONCHINAE IN NEMATODA. Z.N.(S.) 2137 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35: 121—122, Dr M. Shamim Jairajpuri (Section of Nematology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202001, India) put forward proposals for removing the homonymy between IOTONCHINAE Goodey, 1953, based on Iotonchium Cobb, 1920 and IOTONCHIDAE Jairajpuri, 1969, based on Jotonchus Cobb, 1916. Professor L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) and Professor I. Andrassy (Eétvés Lorand University, Zoosystematical Institute, VIII Pushkin-u. 3, Budapest) have both drawn my attention to the fact that the supposed homonymy does not in fact exist, because the family name based on Jotonchium Cobb, 1920, is IOTONCHIIDAE, not IOTONCHIDAE. Under the Code, therefore, IOTONCHINAE Goodey, 1953, is an incorrect original spelling that does not enter into homonymy and there is no call for the Commission to act. Nevertheless, in view of the similarity of the two names, | thought it advisable to consult nematologists as to the likelihood of confusion arising from their continued use. I was assured that the fact that the two families are placed in different orders of Nema- toda, and the differences in the biology of the species within them, made it unlikely that any confusion would arise. Dr M. Shamim Jairajpuri asks that the following paragraph be included: ‘It should be mentioned in this note that the said homonymy was proposed in the light of Article 29d which was operative at that time (1978). Article 29d is, however, contrary to Articles 32c and 55b, and the Division of Zoology of IUBS has recently (1979) approved of the Commission’s proposal that it be deleted. The proposed homonymy between IOTONCHIDAE based on Jotonchium and IOTONCHIDAE based on Jotonchus will also therefore become non-existent. It may be noted that this homonymy with the deletion of 29d was only a result of the incorrectly formed stem of IOTONCHIDAE based on Jotonchium which should in future be read as IOTONCHIIDAE. Consequently, Dr M. Shamim Jairajpuri, the proposer of the homonymy, has agreed to withdraw the application.’ 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CYPHASPIS BURMEISTER, 1843 (TRILOBITA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N(S.)2257 By A.T. Thomas (Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Aston in Birmingham, Gosta Green, Birmingham, B4 7ET) and R.M. Owens (National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, CF] 3NP, U.K.) Burmeister, 1843, Organisation u. Uebersicht Trilobiten, p. 103, erected Cyphaspis for specimens he wrongly identified with Calymene clavifrons Dalman, 1827, Om palaeaderna, p. 260. Burmeister stated that this species was the only one he could definitely assign to the genus and under the provisions of Art. 70 Calymene clavifrons Dalman, 1827 would be the type species of Cyphaspis by monotypy. Since Burmeister misidentified that species, under Art. 70a the case is referred to the Commission for a solution. 2. Burmeister, 1846, Organisation of trilobites, p. 99, realised that he had been wrong in assigning his material to Dalman’s species and correctly identified his specimens with Phacops ceratophthalmus Goldfuss, 1843, Neues Jb. Miner. Geol. Paldont., p. 564. 3. Angelin, 1854, Palaeontologica Scandinavica, p. 32, erected Cyrtometopus with Calymene clavifrons Dalman as type by monotypy. Were the Commission to rule that C. clavifrons Dalman is the type species of Cyphaspis, Cyrtometopus would be a junior synonym. Cyrtometopus is a _ well-established genus of the CHEIRURIDAE. If the proposals introduced here are supported, the genus can continue to be used in its accepted sense. 4. Richter & Richter, 1926, Abh. preuss. geol. Landesanst., vol. 99, p. 95, attributed Cyphaspis to Barrande, 1846, Notice préliminaire with C. burmeisteri Barrande, 1846, Notice préliminaire, p. 59, as type species. They rightly indicated that C. burmeisteri is conspecific with Otarion diffractum Zenker, 1833, Naturgeschichte der Urwelt, p. 44, type species by monotypy of Otarion (Opinion 88) (1925, Smithson. misc. Collins, vol. 73, p. 23-26: Direction 67, Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nom., vol. 1E, pp. 111-128, 1957). The Richters consequently considered Cyphaspis to be a junior subjective synonym of Ofarion Zenker, 1833. ~ , 5. Prantl & Pribyl, 1951, Stat. geol. Ust. Cesk. Rep., vol. 17, p. 444-445, correctly indicated that Burmeister, 1843, was the author of Cyphaspis and that he erected the genus for specimens belonging to Phacops ceratophthalmus Goldfuss. Prantl & Pribyl Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 regarded C. ceratophthalmus and O. diffractum as congeneric and consequently considered Cyphaspis to be a junior subjective syno- nym of Ofrarion, 6. Thomas & Owens, 1978, Palaeontology, vol. 21, pp. 70- 71, examined topotype material of C. ceratophthalmus and O. diffractum and listed characters which they believed justified separation at the generic level. Thomas & Owens incorrectly re- garded C. ceratophthalmus as the type species of Cyphaspis by subsequent designation of Burmeister, 1846. 7. It is in the interests of nomenclatural stability and uniformity to regard C. ceratophthalmus as the type species of Cyphaspis. Such usage preserves Burmeister’s original concept of the genus and the view later workers have had of it; the stability of Cyrtometopus is also ensured. The nomenclatural confusion surrounding Cyphaspis has arisen partly because of Burmeister’s original misidentification of the type species and partly because of the Richters’ incorrect attribution of the genus to Barrande. 8. The Commission is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all desig- nations of type species hitherto made for Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843, and, having done so, to designate Phacops ceratophthalmus Goldfuss, 1843 as the type species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species, by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Phacops ceratophthalmus Goldfuss, 1843, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name ceratophthalmus Goldfuss, 1843, as published in the binomen PHfacops cerato- phthalmus (specific name of type species of Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Cyrtometopus Angelin, 1854 (gender: masculine), type species, by mono- typy, Calymene clavifrons Dalman, 1827, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (5) to place the specific name clavifrons Dalman, 1827, as published in the binomen Calymene clavifrons (specific name of type species of Cyrtometopus Angelin, 1854), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature STERNOTHERUS GRAY, 1825, CORRECT SPELLING; AND PELUSIOS WAGLER, 1830, PROPOSED CONSERVATION (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES). Z.N.(S.)2278. By Hobart M. Smith & Rozella B. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology), and David Chiszar (Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, U.S.A.) The correct spelling of the name for the genus universally recognized for the musk turtles ever since Stejneger’s revival of it in 1923 has been a recurring source of disagreement among herpe- tologists, some adopting the spelling Sternothaerus, others the conventional Sternotherus. \t is our desire that the matter be laid to rest by official endorsement of the latter name. At the same time it is essential in the interest of stability of nomenclature that steps be taken to prevent replacement of the long-accepted name Pelusios Wagler, 1830, by Sternothaerus Bell, 1826. 2. Giving consideration first to the proper generic name for the American musk turtles, the earliest candidate is Sternotherus Gray, 1825, p.211, containing ‘‘S. pensylvanica” (i.e., Testudo pensilvanica Gmelin, 1789 = Testudo subrubra Lacépéde, 1788, now Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum) and “‘S. odorata’”’ (i.e., Testudo odorata Latreille, 1801, now Sternotherus odoratus). The earliest type designation was by Stejneger, 1902, p. 237, who chose the latter species. The next candidate is Sternothaerus Bell, 1826, p.305, which was proposed as “STERNOTHAERUS Mihi’ with four species, none designated as type: (1) trifasciatus sp.n. (now Cuora trifagciata); (2) leachianus sp.n. (now Pelusios subniger (Lacépéde, 1788); (3) odoratus (i.e., Testudo odorata Latreille); and (4) boscii (i.e., Terrapene boscii Merrem, 1820, a junior synonym of Testudo odorata Latreille). 3. At this point two questions arise: (1) the status of Gray’s Sternotherus relative to Bell’s Sternothaerus, inasmuch as Gray cited his name as ‘Sternotherus, Bell, Mss.’; and (2) the type of Bell’s Sternothaerus, inasmuch as three genera as now understood are represented by the species included in it by Bell. The latter question concerns Pelusios and is discussed beginning with paragraph 9; the first question concerns our present topic, namely the nominal genus for the American musk turtles. 4. Although Gray, 1825, credited Bell as the source of Sternotherus, the wording of the description was completely different from that of Sternothaerus Bell, 1826, p. 305. Gray em- ployed the first person form in commenting on the genus: ‘Cuvier Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 37, part 2, June 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 describes the anterior and posterior lobes of the sternum of these species to be moveable; but the hinder was fixed on the specimens which I have examined, which were all dry’. Thus the description appeared to be in Gray’s words, even though he clearly may have drawn the idea for the genus from Bell’s MS. 5. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1964), Article 50, specifies, in this context, that ‘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. . . isalone responsible both for the name and the conditions that make it available’. Clearly Gray’s account is not a copy of Bell’s, and accordingly it can only be concluded that Bell did not provide the description in the form in which it appeared in Gray’s work, even though he may have provided the name or a basis for the name. Gray must therefore be accepted as the author of Sterno- therus. Bell remains author of his name Sternothaerus, based upon a different array of taxa, including one African, one Asian, and two North American nominal species. 6. The name appearing in 1825 could not be rendered as Sternothaerus even if it were attributed to Bell. Although it is true that incorrect original spellings are to be replaced by correct spellings, as pointed out by Tinkle, 1958, p. 51, the Code severely limits the concept of ‘incorrect original spellings’. In this case, only an inadvertent error could be called incorrect, whereas there is no evidence whatever that Gray did not use the spelling Sternotherus quite deliberately. Article 32 of the Code makes it clear that even if Gray did err in transliteration, such an error is not itself ‘inad- vertent’. Again there is no escape from the conclusion that Sterno- therus is the correct spelling for the 1825 name. Indeed, Gray repeated this spelling in his subsequent works, giving no indication of occurrence of error therein. 7. In turn, Article 56 expressly provides that ‘even if the difference between two genus-group names is due to only one letter, these two names are not to be considered homonyms’. Accordingly Sternothaerus of 1826 must be judged on its own merits, as it were, as a name completely independent of and different from Sternotherus of 1825. 8. Thus accepting the generic name Sternotherus as estab- lished by Gray in 1825, with his exact spelling, its application is fixed by its type species, first designated, so far as we are aware, by Stejneger, 1902, p. 237. This is the conclusion reached by most workers, including the two most recent reviews of the situation (Zug, 1971; Smith & Larsen, 1974). However, Tinkle, 1958, p. 51, reasoned that Sternothaerus is the correct name for the American 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature musk turtles, and he has been followed by several authors. 9. Turning now to Bell’s Sternothaerus, it should be noted that there is some question whether Bell’s article appeared in 1826 (as thought by Smith & Larsen) or in 1825 (as construed by Stejneger and by Zug). The ‘published title page’ (Zug) for Gray states September, 1825, and for Bell October, 1825; thus even if Bell’s article did appear in 1825 it followed Gray’s article. Smith & Larsen, 1974, p. 44, regard Bell’s 1825 date as the date of presen- tation, not of publication, and there is no evidence that Bell’s work was actually published before 1826. 10. Up until 1902 most workers regarded Sternothaerus Bell as the valid name for the African genus now known as Pelusios: nomenclatural confusion with Sternotherus Gray presented no problem, since the American musk turtles were, until 1923, all regarded as species of Kinosternon Spix. It was not until Stejneger, 1902, p. 237, cited the type species of Sternothaerus Bell as Testudo odoratus that the next available name, Pelusios Wagler, 1830, was adopted for the African genus, and has so remained in virtually all works ever since. / 11. Stejneger construed Testudo odoratus as the type species of Sternothaerus Bell on ‘automatic’ grounds, due to the duplication in the two nominal genera Sternotherus and Sternothaerus (the first derived from the second) of one nominal species, Testudo odorata. The decision was, however, accepted by virtually all workers, whether agreeing with the logic by which it was reached or not. 12. As Sternothaerus Bell must be treated as an indepen- dently established nominal taxon, there are no automatic grounds in the Code whereby the type species of Sternothaerus Bell can be properly regarded as fixed, except by subsequent designation. No one, save Wermuth & Mertens, 1977, p. 12, has noted any explicit designation prior to Stejneger’s in 1902; Wermuth & Mertens pointed out that Fitzinger, 1843, p. 29, explicitly designated odoratus as the type of Bell’s Sternothaerus, thus fortunately con- forming with Stejneger’s designation that has been so widely accepted. 13. However, in a work completely overlooked by all workers, including ourselves, up until the present time, Bell, 1828, pp. 514-515, explicitly designated the type species of his Sterno- thaerus as his own Sternothaerus leachianus (= Pelusios subniger (Lacépéde, 1788)) of the same work. This is unquestionably the earliest type designation for the genus, and its acceptance would make Sternothaerus Bell, 1826, a senior subjective synonym of Pelusios Wagler, 1830, type species Testudo subnigra Lacépéde, 1788, by subsequent designation by Fitzinger, 1843, p. 29. This Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 would upset the nomenclature of Pelusios that has been in general current use since 1902, so clearly, in the interests of stability, Bell’s type-species designation should be set aside in favour of Fitzinger’s later designation. 14. Accordingly, we here ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: — (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all fixations of type species for Sternothaerus Bell, 1826, prior to the designation of Testudo odorata Latreille, 1801, by Fitzinger, 1843, p. 29; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoo- logy: (a) Sternotherus Gray, 1825 (gender: masculine), type- species by subsequent designation by Stejneger, 1902, p. 237, Testudo odorata Latreille, 1801; (b) Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (gender: masculine), type- species designated by Fitzinger, 1843, p. 29, Testudo subnigra Lacépéde, 1788; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) odorata Latreille, 1801, as published in the binomen Testudo odorata (specific name of the type species of Sternotherus Gray, 1825); (b) subnigra Lacépéde, 1788, as published in the bino- men Testudo subnigra (specific name of the type species of Pelusios Wagler, 1830); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Sternothaerus Bell, 1826, ajunior objective synonym of Sternotherus Gray, 1825, by virtue of the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above. REFERENCES BELL, T., 1826 A monograph of the tortoises having a moveable sternum, with remarks on their arrangement and affinities. Zool. J. vol.2, pp. 299-310. 1828. Characters of the order, families, and genera of the Testudinata. Zool. J. vol. 3, pp. 513-516. FITZINGER, L., 1843. Systema reptilium. Fasciculus primus. Amblyglossae. Vindobonae, Braéumuller and Seidel, 106, x pp. GMELIN, J. F., 1789. in Linnaeus, Systema Naturae (edn. 13) vol. 1(3), pp. 1038-1516, Leipzig. GRAY, J. E., 1825. A synopsis of the genera of reptiles and amphibia, with a description of some new species. Ann. Philos. (N.S.) vol. 10, pp. 193- phily fe LACEPEDE, B. G. E., 1788-1789. Histoire naturelle des quadrupédes ovipares et des serpens. Paris. 2 vols. 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MERREM, B., 1820. Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien. Tentamen syste- matis amphibiorum. Marburg. xv, 191 pp., 1 pl. SMITH, H. M. & LARSEN, K. R., 1974. The generic name of the North American musk turtles. Gr. Basin Nat. vol. 34(1), pp. 42-44. STEJNEGER, L., 1902. Some generic names of turtles. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 15, pp. 235-238. 1923. Rehabilitation of a hitherto overlooked species of musk turtle of the southern United States. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. 62, pp. i-3. TINKLE, D. W., 1958. The systematics and ecology of the Sternothaerus carinatus complex. Tulane Stud. Zool., vol. 6, pp. 1-56, figs. 1-57. WAGLER, J. G., 1830. Natiirliches System der Amphibien, mit vorangehender Classification der Sdugethiere und Vogel. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichender Zoologie. Munich. vi, 354 pp., 9 pls. WERMUTH, H. & MERTENS, R., 1977. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Das Tierreich, vol. 100, pp. i-xxvii, 1-174. ZUG, G. R., 1971. American musk turtles, Sternothaerus or Sternotherus? Herpetologica, vol. 27(4), pp. 446-449. Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the main regular source of income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales of this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of dona- tions and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. ©1980 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD. pp. 129 — 192 Volume 37, Part 3 a Wa “ISSN 0007 - 5167 P te hr “eee Sp ~25th September 1980 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONTENTS Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ..... (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain ES Eee eC ees, cova ate aie vo iaWelide ater’ we, b 8) Xue & Se epee (Contents continued on page xi) LONDON International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD Price £7.50 (All rights reserved) Page 129 130 $i sa ata 73> ei Tae: aeena ae amie Rr ets eae a Tet oa ee : * eee eee se ill / ee ‘te "i a> nites e THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ix ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). Assistant Secretary: Dr. 1.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Prof. T. HABE (National Science Museum, 3-23-1 Hyakunin-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) (Councillor) Mollusca Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972) Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September, 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Prof. Harold E. VOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crustacea Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 bis rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Lepidoptera Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231, Paris, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Jnstytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada) (17 March 1976) Nematoda Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda x Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (College Fellow in Life Sciences, School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia) (29 September 1976) Mammalia; Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 1976) (President) Diptera Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitatsgebiet Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé, Norway) (27 December 1978) Parasitology Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Octocorallia; Systematics Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I1. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Department of Zoology, University of Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. D. Curry, F.G:S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Mon. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. N.E. Hickin Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Dr. G.F. deWitte Dr. C.A. Wright, F.R.S. (Observer) B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) CONTENTS (continued from front cover) Comments Gecarcinus hirtipes Lamarck, 1818 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed suppression (L.B. Holthuis and reply by M. Turkay) ........ MORPHIDAE, Westwood 1851 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): a further serrection(C FGowan) «./. 7eteeiess .Waeencdighins aoe EDWARDSIIDAE, Andres, 1881 (Coelenterata: Actinaria): proposed conservation (R.K. Brooke & J.H. Day and reply by [SEIT LOPS) ae RI Age inet SARS ie eaten “SIE tee Musicicapa ruficauda Swainson, 1838 (Aves): proposed designation of neotype (H.E. Wolters and reply by C.W. Benson) ........ Code: Report of the Committee on Typification of Species of Protozoa: (comment by R.B. Williams) ................. Code: Paranomenclature: comment on proposed amendments to Code (R.W. Huddleston and reply by the Secretary) ........ New and revived cases Comments on criteria of publication and a petition to the Comm- ission for a definitive ruling on the publication validity of dis- sertations et al. in draft third edition of the Code: (D. Haman & RW Jiuddlestan)c. cc toca LB Ak oehee sas bets THAIDIDAE (Gastropoda): proposed amendment of entry in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (W.O. CemoOnormsky) nc. A: > ca a oie «EE Ee SE DE Se ae Voluta papilio Link, 1807 (Gastropoda): proposed conservation CWO CemOnormkyy asco we. chee See ree no Pane aio tienes Antilope zebra Gray, 1838 (Mammalia): revised proposals for conservation’ (W2Po. Ansell). 2. eo c.c beeen ee be eee ens Sphinx tipuliformis Clerck, 1759 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation (N.P. Kristensen) ..................0-000- Sesia andrenaeformis Laspeyres, 1801 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation (N.P. Kristensen) ................ Chermes fusca Zetterstedt, 1828 (Insecta, Homoptera), a secondary homonym in Psylla Geoffroy, 1762: proposed validation “ap i RR gaan ee eae STARE yen Aes glee eigen Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed desig- nation of type species (H. Inoue) .....................- Calamoecia australica Sars, 1908 and C. australis (Searle, 1911) (Crustacea, Copepoda): proposals to remove confusion (I.A.E. Bayly)... the 2 ., ASL ras, ee. ego. Oy PAPILIONIDAE (Insecta, Lepidoptera): request for revision of the Official Liss Cawanke . 2 heiwshald. 65.1.5. (insects. Apt Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 and Nephanes Thomson, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera): request for conservation (O. Bistrom) ......... xi Page 133 134 135 136 137 141 145 148 149 152 154 156 159 163 165 167 169 xii Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 (Insecta, Aphidoidea): proposed Galago crassicaudatus E. proposed designation of neotype (T.R. Olson) .-----+-:*7*" Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposal to designate gender and stem (1.W.B. re ed eee eee ee ae Athyreus Macleay, 1819 and Glyptus Brullé, 1835 (Insecta, Coleo- ptera) proposed conservation (H.F. Howden).-.----:-**°°" 173 176 186 191 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 37, part 3 (pp. 129 - 192) 25th September 1980 NOTICES (a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circum- stances the Commission may start to vote on applications pub- lished 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 application of Articles 23a-b and 79b): *(1) Voluta papilio Link, 1807 (Gastropoda), proposed con- servation; Z.N.(S.) 1777. W.O. Cernohorsky. (2) Antilope zebra Gray, 1838 (Mammalia), revised propo- sals for conservation. Z.N.(S.)1908. W.F.H. Ansell. *(3) Sphinx tipuliformis Clerck, 1759 (Insecta, Lepidoptera), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2138. N.P. Kristensen. *(4) Sesia andrenaeformis Laspeyres, 1801 (Insecta, Lepi- doptera), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2139. N.P. Kristensen. (S) Chermes fusca Zetterstedt, 1828 (Insecta, Homoptera), a secondary homonym in Psylla Geoffroy, 1762: proposed validation. Z.N.(S.)2149. P. Lauterer. (6) Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 (Insecta, Lepidoptera), proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.)2160. H. Inoue. (7) Calamoecia australica Sars, 1908, and C. australis (Searle, 1911) (Crustacea, Copepoda), proposals to remove confusion. Z.N.(S.)2242. I.A.E. Bayly. (8) Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844, and Nephanes Thomson, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2258. (O. Bistrom). *(9) Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915 (Insecta, Aphidoidea), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2283. H.L.G. Stroyan. 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (10) Galago crassicaudatus Geoffroy, 1812 (Mammalia, Primates), proposed designation of neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2285. T.R. Olson. (11) Athyreus Macleay, 1819 and Glyptus Brullé, 1835 (c) (Insecta, Coleoptera), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 1583. H.F. Howden. Receipt of new applications. The following new appli- cations have been received since the publication of vol. 37(2) on 19th June 1980. Those marked with an asterisk involve the appli- cation of Articles 23a-b and 79b. (1) (2) (3) 5s LD. =(5) *(6) *(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Dendropoma Morch, 1861, and Siphonium (Dendro- poma) lituella Mérch, 1861 (Gastropoda), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2340. A. Myra Keen & M.G. Had- field. Hyla lactea Daudin, 1803 (Amphibia), proposed conser- vation. Z.N.(S.)2341. J.D. Lynch. Article 45g, interpretation of the terms ‘variety’ and ‘form’. Z.N.(S.)2342. The Secretary. Kassina Girard, 1853 (Amphiba, Anura), proposed con- servation. Z.N.(S.)2343. A. Dubois, A. Stimson, J.-J. Morére & B. Clarke. Calcarina calcar d’Orbigny, 1839 (Foraminifera), pro- posed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2344. H.J. Hansen. Drasterius bimaculatus Rossi, 1790 (Insecta, Coleoptera), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2345. M. Mroczkowski. Trachys nana Paykull, 1799 (Insecta, Coleoptera), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2346. M. Mroczkowski. Atrax Cambridge, 1877 (Arachnida, Araneae), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2347. M.R. Gray. Generic, familial and ordinal nomenclature of turtles. Z.N.(S.)2348. R. Bour & A. Dubois. Generic names in neotropical BATAGURINAE (Reptilia, Chelonii). Z.N.(S.)2349. R. Bour & A. Dubois. Familial, subfamilial and generic nomenclature of soft- shelled turtles. Z.N.(S.)2350. R. Bour & A. Dubois. Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Lepidoptera), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2351. G. Lamas, R.E. Silberglied & A. Alello. Scarabaeus rufus de Geer, 1776, Moll, 1782, Fabricius, 1792 (Insecta, Coleoptera), proposed suspension of the Law of Homonymy (see also Z.N.(S.)2318). Z.N.(S.) 2352. Z. Stebnicka. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131 *(14) Exoprosopa Macquart, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera), pro- posed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2353. N.L. Evenhuis. (15) Proposed use of the term ‘epithet’ in the Code. Z.N. (S.)2354. The Secretary. (16) Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 (Arachnida, Araneae), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2355. G.B. Edwards. (17) Alveolina d’Orbigny, 1826, proposed validation (Foram- inifera). Z.N.(S.)2356. A.R. Loeblich, Jr. & H. Tappan. (18) ATYIDAE in Crustacea and Mollusca; proposals to remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.)2357. T.K. Crosby & A. Carpenter. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ELECTION OF A NEW MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION Dr. Pekka T. Lehtinen, of the University of Turku, Finland, has been elected a member of the Commission with effect from 8 August 1980. Dr Lehtinen, who is 46 years of age, is a specialist in Arachnida, and has travelled widely in the developing countries. PERSONNEL OF THE COMMISSION’S OFFICE Mr. R.J. Lever, who joined the staff of the office in February 1979, left in February 1980. He made a distinct contribution to work that was quite unfamiliar to him and increased the rate at which it was possible to prepare applications for publication. He also identified a number of old cases whose purposes could in fact be met by the applicaton of the Code. We are sorry to lose him. RESIGNATION OF A MEMBER OF THE TRUST Mr. C.W. Wright has tendered his resignation as a member of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and its Comm- ittee of Management because of difficulty in attending meetings. Mr Wright was elected a member of the Trust in 1958 and has served continuously since that time. For most of the period he was also a member of the Committee of Management. At the same time he was a member of the Editorial Committee of the 1961 Internat- ional Code of Zoological Nomenclature, where his clarity of thought and cogency of reasoning were highly valued by his coll- eagues. He has also helped the Commission in many less conspic- uous ways. Since his retirement from the Civil Service he has lived in the country and has taken up a research fellowship at Churchill College, Oxford, where he is contributing to a steady flow of publi- cations on Cretaceous ammonites. His presence in London will be sorely missed. 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature APPOINTMENT OF AN OBSERVER TO THE TRUST As the accounts for 1979 will show, the U.K. Advisory Board for the Research Councils has generously granted £5000 to the Trust for the financial year 1979-80, and has allocated similar sums for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82. This money will be paid through the Royal Society, whose Council has appointed Dr. C.A. Wright F.R.S. as an observer on its behalf. The accounts for 1980 will show, in due course, that the International Union of Biological Sciences has allocated $10,000 to the Trust for that year, with similar sums to follow in 1981 and 1982. Dr Wright has also been appointed as an observer on behalf of the Union. Dr Wright was Secretary-General of the IUBS from 1973 to 1976. His advice to the Trust will therefore be of the greatest value. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature August 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF GECARCINUS HIRTIPES LAMARCK, 1818. Z.N.(S.)2096 (see vol. 32, pp. 168-1 70) By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) identified with Dana’s species. pup According to Mr Tirkay’s revision, Cardisoma hirtipes has not Cardisoma), but I leave this to the applicant. Personally, I should prefer to see the name Gecarcinus hirtipes Lamarck disposed of by synonymising it with Cardisoma hirtipes Dana (through a neotype designation) than by suppression for all purposes, as Proposed by Mr Tiirkay. REPLY TO DR HOLTHUIS’ COMMENT CONCERNING THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF GE CARCINUS HIRTIPES LAMARCK, 1818 Z.NS.)2096. By M. Turkay (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg. Frankfurt am Main, Germany) Dr Holthuis has pointed out in his comment a way by means of which the status of Gecarcinus hirtipes Lamarck, 1818, may be fixed without by Lamarck may fit Cardisoma _hirtipes Dana, 1852, as well. The only indication excluding Dana’s species is in fact the locality ‘Ile de France’ (= Mauritius). 2? Cardisoma hirtipes Dana, 1852, does not occur at Mauritius, all Specimens identified to Dana’s species with provenance more west than the (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824). While working on my revision I traced and Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 ee 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature reidentified all available material of the region. This is true also for all speci- mens from Mauritius that I have seen and especially for all specimens of the reference collection kept at the Mauritius Institute (Port Louis, Mauritius). If Cardisoma hirtipes Dana, 1852, occurred at Mauritius, it would surely be repre- sented at least in this last collection. 3 As the locality is part of Lamarck’s description, it seems highly undesirable to me to pass over this exact indication. Following Dr Holthuis’ suggestions would result in eliminating this only restricting part of the original description. In my opinion, however, an original type locality should be regarded as sure, unless the contrary may be proved by the exact description or type material. 4. For the selection of a neotype it is obligatory to prove that the locality of the specimen indicated for this purpose is near to the locality of the original type material. (Art. 75c, 4). The nearest possible localities will of course be the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. This solution is in my opinion unsatisfactory as I see no possibility of preference for any locality within the range of Cardisoma hirtipes Dana, 1852. All possible localities are too far away. ie Under the present circumstances I see no chance for Gecarcinus hirtipes Lamarck, 1818 being identical with Cardisoma hirtipes Dana, 1852. The consequences of substituting G. hirtipes Lamarck, 1818, for C. rotundum (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) or identifying it with C. carnifex (Herbst, 1796) have been shown in my original application (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 32, pp. 168-170). 6. For these reasons I continue to ask the commission for supp- tession of Gecarcinus hirtipes Lamarck, 1818, for all purposes. MORPHIDAE (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA), A FURTHER CORRECTION. Z.N(S)2201 By C.F. Cowan (4, Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over-Sands, Cumbria, LAI1 7DR, England) In Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34(2), pp. 109-111, I requested that Family- Group Name Number 225 on the Official List be changed from MORPHIDAE Westwood, [1851] to MORPHIDAE Boisduval, 1836. us Dr Gerardo Lamas of Peru has alerted me to an even earlier pro- posal of this name, which I must apologise for having completely overlooked. yp Newman, E., Attempted Division of British Insects into natural Orders (Ent. Mag. vol. 2(4) (Oct. 1834), pp. 379-430) covered all insects, including some exotics. Among the latter was “MORPHITES” (pp. 379, 381), which, although given neither a diagnosis nor any included genera, was clearly based on the already universally recognised generic name Morpho Fabricius, 1807 [misprinted ‘1808’ in the earlier application]. This proposal appears perfectly valid and acceptable. 4. I therefore request that paragraph 8 of my application referred to in line 1 above be cancelled, and that the International Commission take instead the following action: — (1) | substitute in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology against Name No. 225 the Family-Group name MORPHIDAE Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135 (correction of MORPHITES) Newman, E., 1834 (Ent. Mag. vol. 2(4), pp. 379, 381) for the present name MORPHIDAE Westwood, [1851] (and its reference); with type-genus unaltered; (2) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-group names — (a) MORPHITES Newman, E., 1834 (Ent. Mag. vol. 2, pp. 379, 381), an incorrect original spelling of MORPHIDAE; (b) MORPHOIDES Agassiz, 1847 (Nomencl. zool., Index univ., 4° edn., p. 239, an unjustified emendation of MORPHIDES Boisduval, 1836, itself an incorrect subsequent spelling of MORPHIDAE. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF EDWARDSIIDAE ANDRES, 1881 (COELENTERATA: ACTINARIA). Z.N.(S.)2261 (see vol. 36: 175-179) By R. K. Brooke (FitzPatrick Institute, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, R.S.A.) and Prof. J.H. Day (47 Liesbeek Rd., Rosebank 7700, R.S.A.) While Dr Williams has made a very good case which we support for the conservation of Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841, he has given no reasons for his request that the International Commission place the family-group name EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881, on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. If the Commission decides to comply with his request to conserve Edwardsia as we hope it will, EDWARDSIIDAE is adequately protected unless there is some problem to which Dr Williams has not drawn attention. The Commission should not be asked to do nor should it do anything more than is needed to solve the problem placed before it. Reply to the Comment of R.K. Brooke & J.H. Day on Z.N.(S.)2261 By R.B. Williams (2 Carrington Place, Tring, Herts. HP23 5LA) Brooke & Day have questioned the need to request the Commission to place the name EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. I am not aware of any problem connected with this name beyond that which I have already stated (Williams, 1979). 2 At the time of writing, the two problems of homonymy of the genus name Edwardsia and the invalidity of the family name EDWARDSIIDAE remain separate. I accept that if Edwardsia Costa, 1834 were to be suppressed in favour of Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841, then EDWARDSIIDAE would be automatically validated, but if any valid objection were raised to the suppression of Edwardsia Costa, the application for conservation of EDWARDSIIDAE and its placing on the Official List would still have to be considered. 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a In complex cases, it is important to place before the Commission all the relevant information and alternative suggested actions which might be necessary. It is then the responsibility of the Commission alone to judge whichever of the suggested actions are most appropriate in the circumstances. REFERENCES WILLIAMS, R. B., 1979. Edwardsia Costa, 1834 (Arthropoda: Crustacea): proposed suppression under the plenary powers with conservation of Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841 and Edwardsiidae Andres, 1881 (Coelenterata: Actiniaria). Z.N.(S.)2261. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36: 175-179. COMMENT ON PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF NEOTYPE FOR MUSCICAPA RUFICAUDA SWAINSON, 1838 (AVES). Z.N.(S.)2270 (see vol. 36, pp. 180-186) (1) By H.E. Wolters (Zoological Museum Alexander Koenig, D.5300 Bonn, B.R.D.) Though I dislike the growing tendency to retain names for taxa to which they were erroneously applied by most or all subsequent authors, I should agree with Mr Benson’s proposal to use in future the name Siphia ruficauda Sharpe, 1879 for the flycatcher hitherto known as Muscicapa (or more correctly, as I believe, Ficedula) ruficauda Swainson, 1838 (the holotype of which is a specimen of what is generally known as Cyornis unicolor Blyth, 1843) were it not for the fact that, many years before Sharpe, Blyth, 1851, J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, vol. 20, p. 523, had already proposed the name Cyornis aequalicauda (erroneously quoted as Muscicapa aequalicauda by Stuart Baker, Fauna British India, Birds, vol. 7, p. 138) for a bird from Kunawar, Kachhar, which represents this same species. Although I have not had an opportunity to examine the type specimen, there can be no doubt from the original description (which was kindly copied for me by Dr G.F. Mees of Leiden) that Blyth’s name applies to the Muscicapa ruficauda of authors. I therefore cannot see any reason for suppressing Blyth’s name aequalicauda, and Muscicapa ruficauda auctt. therefore should stand as Muscicapa (or Ficedula) aequalicauda (Blyth, 1851). On the other hand, in order to avoid confusion, the binomen Muscicapa ruficauda Swainson, 1838, may be suppressed in favour of Cyornis unicolor Blyth, 1843, as proposed by Mr Benson. (2) Reply by C.W. Benson I agree with Dr Wolters that Blyth’s name aequalicauda would appear to apply to the taxon ruficauda in the sense of Sharpe, 1879 rather than of Swainson, 1838, in view of ‘whitish’ under tail-coverts and ‘Bill dark above, whitish below’ (reference Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 181-182, 1979, paragraph 6). I am unaware, however, that Blyth’s name has ever been used subsequently to 1851 beyond the single citation by E.C.S. Baker referred to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 by Dr Wolters (the year being 1930). At least, if there are any further instances they are not mentioned by Dr. Wolters. Accordingly, to use the name aequalicauda in preference to the widely accepted ruficauda would disturb stability and cause confusion. It seems that Dr Wolters has not understood that, if my application is approved, ‘ruficauda auctorum sensu Sharpe, 1879’, will become ruficauda Swainson, 1838, and hence senior to aequalicauda Blyth, 1851. This unused name would thereby become a junior, not a senior synonym, and thus no threat to stability. SOME COMMENTS ON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TYPIFICATION OF SPECIES OF PROTOZOA. (Z.NAG.) 185) By R.B. Williams (Wellcome Research Laboratories, Berkhamsted, Herts) Melville, 1979, presented the report of the committee established by the International Commission on Protozoology to study the problem of typification of protozoal species and enumerated six topics which were discussed. I should like to make some comments which I hope will be useful to scientists considering the implications of that report. Although my examples are drawn largely from the homoxenous coccidia (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) they serve to illustrate a wide range of problems in the typification of parasitic protozoans. (Italics used in quotations indicate my own emphases.) The committee’s new concept of a hapantotype was further elucidated by Garnham, Bray and Killick-Kendrick, 1979. 2.1. My first comment concerns the committee’s definition of a hapantotype (paragraph 5.5), ‘individuals taken at one stage in the life cycle and cycled under controlled conditions through the various host species until it is possible to draw off and preserve samples of each stage from a single strain which, itself, can continue to exist’. I think that the problem of simultaneously producing a hapantotype consisting of directly related individuals and a mono- specific strain has not been sufficiently stressed. Joyner, Canning, Long, Rollinson and Williams, 1978, proposed a terminology for populations of coccidia of the genus Eimeria at the infrasubspecific level and recommended that ‘strains normally will be established from a single oocyst or sporocyst’. It has also been recommended that individual organisms be used to initiate strains of salivarian trypanosomes (Anon., 1978). In other groups of protozoans, a pair of individuals might be needed to initiate a strain, depending on the type of life cycle. It is not necessary to use expensive micromanipulators to isolate individuals. With many protozoans, the medium containing them may simply be diluted progressively until one drop contains one organism. 2.2 It cannot be stressed too strongly that this general principle should be adhered to whenever practicable since, if more than one individual or pair of individuals (whichever appropriate) were used to initiate a strain, a hapantotype derived from it might accidentally consist of more than one species. For example, there has been a great deal of controversy over the question of whether Eimeria acervulina Tyzzer, 1929 and E. mivati Edgar and Seibold, 1964 constitute the same biological species (Long, 1973; Shirley, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1979). Shirley’s 1979 study has shown that these two nominal species are, in fact, valid and that the previous confusion was caused by the use of laboratory ‘strains’ consisting of mixtures of the two species. This situation could have been avoided by initiating strains with single organisms. There is as much risk of mixed populations arising from the indiscriminate establishment of strains as from the use of heterogeneous cyropreserved material, which was particu- larly criticized by the committee in paragraph 5.9 of their report. I would suggest that if cloning or some other way of absolutely ensuring the initiation of monospecific strains cannot be carried out, then the designation of a hapan- totype should not be attempted and a conventional type should be designated. 3.1 Regarding the use of cryopreserved specimens as a source of hapantotypic material (paragraph 5.9), there would seem to be little point in such a procedure if material were readily available directly from a strain being used to establish the biological characteristics of the species but there may well be some situations in which material might have to be cryopreserved pending the designation of a type. However, the use of cryopreserved specimens as part of a hapantotype seems to be worthy of consideration. It should be noted that the current amended version of Article 72b(v) of the Code does not preclude the inclusion of viably preserved specimens in a hapantotype (see Melville, 1979, p. 207). 3.2 Joyner and Long 1974 described the range of specific character- istics important in the taxonomy of the Eimeria species of the fowl, emphasizing the significance of pathogenic effects and immunological specificity. Unfortunately, lesions quickly fade in traditional fixatives and tangible specimens cannot be obtained from the results of cross-immunity tests. Hence, these characteristics cannot be represented in a hapantotype consisting only of dead preserved material: living specimens need to be avail- able as stabilates to provide experimental evidence for differences or similarities between biological characteristics of hapantotypic and other material. Living material is also required to demonstrate a species which can infect different primary hosts and shows variable characteristics in so doing, e.g., E. dispersa Tyzzer, 1929 which can infect at least five species of gallinaceous birds (Doran, 1978a, 1978b). A hapantotype made up from nonviably preserved material from one of these hosts might appear very different from another hapantotype of the same biological species infecting a different host: living material would be necessary to carry out host specificity and other tests (as in Doran, 1978b) in order to confirm the conspecificity or otherwise of nominal species. Stabilates removed from cryopreservation for studies to verify an application of a name would not, of course, be returned to the hapantotype; hence replicate stabilates would have to be available. Although it is now known that the species of Eimeria infecting chickens can be clearly characterized by iso- enzyme techniques (Rollinson, 1975; Shirley, 1975) and the zymograms can be preserved for inclusion in a hapantotype, it should be realized that not all laboratories would have the appropriate facilities and more conventional taxonomic procedures might have to be followed. 3.3. Some of the objections (paragraph 5.9) to the use of frozen material may be answered as follows. There may indeed be variations between » the numbers of cells present and their viability and infectivity in each ampoule but there is little significance in this so long as there are some survivors which can initiate infections. Lumsden, 1972, discussing the principles of cryo- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139 preservation, stated, ‘As regards modification of biological characteristics of organisms by the cryopreservation process no clear evidence for this has so far been presented. It appears that cryopreservation is selective in the population in a way unrelated to its biological variation’. My own experiences with cryo- preserved Histomonas and Eimeria species bear this out. Regarding mixed populations, these could be avoided if stabilates were established from strains derived as recommended by Joyner et al., 1978. 3.4 The use of frozen material as a viable component of a hapanto- type might be criticized on the grounds of the risks associated with the possi- bility of failure to keep the liquid nitrogen supply topped up. However, there is probably no more risk of this happening than of allowing conventional speci- mens in spirit to dry out, a not infrequent occurrence in museums. Further information is required on the length of time for which cryopreserved material might remain viable. It should be borne in mind that fixed material of some invertebrate groups may become useless for examination after 50 years or so in spirit. 4.1 The suggestion made in paragraph 5.7 that lesions (‘work of an animal’ in the sense of the Code) cannot form part of a hapantotype if they contain no parasites (‘as in the aftermath of Eimeria necatrix infections’) does not seem logical. None of the examples given in the present Code, p. 154, ‘tracks, galls, worm-tubes, borings’, necessarily require the presence of the animal originally associated with them. Galls are actually the work of the host in response to parasitic invasion as are parasitic lesions in general. Some lesions are pathognomonic whilst perhaps most are not but they all contribute in some way to the recognition of species. The question of whether lesions can form a useful component of a hapantotype (see paragraph 3.2 of this paper) still must be decided by individual authors. 5.1 Finally, should the concept of a hapantotype be restricted solely to the protozoa? Many phyla include species with several stages of develop- ment and, like some protozoa, different biological species might not be distin- guishable at every stage of their life cycles. For example the three currently accepted species of Obelia (Coelenterata: Hydrozoa) possess indistinguishable medusoid stages. Conversely, in many genera of hydromedusae there is specific diversity of the medusoid generation while the hydroid stage appears uniform (Cornelius, 1975; Russell, 1953). As early as 1864, Allman was stressing the need to define genera and species of Hydrozoa by reference to all stages of the life history. Surely, in the interests of stability of nomenclature, taxonomists working on groups other than Protozoa should be allowed the option of designating hapantotypes when they consider it necessary and practicable. Under the present Code, a worker who, for example, had raised, in the labora- tory, planulae, hydroids and medusae of an unknown hydrozoan species would be able to designate only one specimen as the holotype and the rest as para- types. It would seem more logical to designate all the related stages as a hapan- totype. 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REFERENCES ALLMAN, G. J. 1864. On the construction and limitation of genera among the Hydroida. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., vol. 13, pp. 345-380. ANON. 1978. Proposals for the nomenclature of salivarian trypanosomes and for the maintenance of reference collections. Bull. Wid Hith Org., vol. 56, pp. 467-480. CORNELIUS, P. F. S. 1975. The hydroid species of Obelia (Coelenterata, Hy drozoa: Campanulariidae), with notes on the medusa stage. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.), vol. 28 pp. 249-293. DORAN, D. J. 1978a. The life cycle of Eimeria dispersa Tyzzer, 1929 in turkeys. J. Protozool., vol. 25, pp. 293-297. 1978b. The life cycle of Eimeria dispersa Tyzzer, 1929 from the turkey in gallinaceous birds. J. Parasit., vol. 64, pp. 882-885. GARNHAM, P. C. C., BRAY, R. S. & KILLICK-KENDRICK, R. 1979. The case for multiple type specimens in parasitic Protozoa. Z.N. (G.) 185. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. 17-21. JOYNER, L. P. & LONG, P. L. 1974. The specific characters of the Eimeria, with special reference to the coccidia of the fowl. Avian Path., vol. 3, pp. 145-157. JOYNER, L. P., CANNING, E. U., LONG, P. L., ROLLINSON, D. & WILLIAMS, R. B. 1978. A suggested terminology for populations of coccidia (Eimeriorina), particularly of the genus Eimeria (Protozoa: Apicomplexa). Parasitology, vol. 77, pp. 27-31. LONG, P. L. 1973. Studies on the relationship between Eimeria acervulina and Eimeria mivati. Parasitology, vol. 67, pp. 143-155. LUMSDEN, W. H. R. 1972. Principles of viable preservation of parasitic Protozoa. Int. J. Parasit., vol. 2, pp. 327-332. MELVILLE, R. V. 1979. Report of the Committee on Typification of Species of Protozoa. Z.N.(G.)185. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 35, pp. 200-208. ROLLINSON, D. 1975. Electrophoretic variation of enzymes in chicken coccidia. Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., vol. 69, pp. 436-437. RUSSELL, F. S. 1953. The Medusae of the British Isles. Vol. 1. Cambridge. SHIRLEY, M. W. 1975. Enzyme variation in Eimeria species of the chicken. Parasitology, vol. 71, pp. 369-376. 1979. A reappraisal of the taxonomic status of Eimeria mivati Edgar and Seibold, 1964, by enzyme electrophoresis and cross-immunity tests. Parasitology, vol. 78, pp. 221-237. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONCERNING PARANOMENCLATURE. Z.N.(S.)2250 (see vol. 36, pp. 11-14) By R.W. Huddleston (Chevron Oil Field Research Company, P.O. Box 446, La Habra, California, U.S.A.) While the concept of paranomenclature (as defined in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, pp. 11-14) was designed to afford nomenclatural stability among certain fossil groups, it generates the potential for confusion in other groups, particularly among fossil vertebrates. The criteria of parataxa rests on an undefined separation between incomplete and more complete fossils, or between names for smaller and larger parts. This presupposes that ‘biggest is best’ and ignores totally the relative taxonomic diagnosticity of these parts. The smaller parts may contain those elements deemed taxonomically diagnostic, while these same elements may be lacking from the larger, nearly complete specimens. This is particularly common among some fossil vertebrates, especially fossil fishes. One of the most taxonomically diagnostic elements within the bony structure of fishes is the otolith. Isolated otoliths have been used to identify Recent fish from stomach contents of predators (Fitch & Brownell, 1968, 1972) and from archaeological sites (Fitch, 1969, 1972, 1975; Huddleston & Barker, 1978). The Pleistocene fish fauna of California is almost entirely based on isolated otoliths (Fitch, 1964, 1966, 1970). All of these studies serve as examples of the taxonomic integrity of these elements. Within California, faunas represented by articulated fossil fish are restricted to rather specialized, deepwater environments of late Miocene age. Faunas based on isolated otoliths are represented in the California Palaeocene, Eocene, Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene. Fossil otoliths are rarely encountered in situ, i.e. associated with the fish, but at one locality in California some of the articulated fish retain their . Otoliths. So far none of these otoliths have been found to be conspecific with isolated otoliths from other deposits. Faunas based on isolated otoliths are far more abundant and continuous in the geologic record than comparable size faunas based on articulated fishes. To restrict the law of priority only to the articulated fishes is unjustified and to restrict the law of priority to isolated otoliths equally incomprehensible. The current law of priority is quite sufficient to resolve any synonymies that arise without confusing the study of this group. Under the concept of parataxa, names based on isolated otoliths would be considered parataxonomic and as such their diagnostic and taxonomic values would be obscured and their contributions to paleoichthyologic studies could easily become ignored by students of more complete articulated speci- mens. Rather than unifying the study of fossil fishes, paranomenclatural concepts would invite an unnecessary proliferation of parataxonomic names for a variety of isolated elements such as scales, teeth, fin spines, vertebral centra, ichthyoliths etc., each becoming a separate field, isolated and possibly oblivious to the effects and information from the other fields. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Parataxa concepts also could have chaotic effects on the study of Palaeozoic fishes which are virtually never complete or articulated. Further confusion could arise in differentiation of taxa and parataxa among Mesozoic and early Tertiary mammals and fossil birds. I believe that the concept of parataxa and paranomenclature would have an adverse effect and introduce unnecessary confusion in the study of fossil vertebrates. Further I strongly recommend that the concept of parataxa and paranomenclature at least be restricted to non-vertebrate fossils. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Chevron Oil Field Research Company for their assistance in the preparation of these comments, and D. Haman for his comments and suggestions. REFERENCES FITCH, J. E., 1964. The fish fauna of the Playa del Rey locality, a southern California marine Pleistocene deposit. Sci. Contrib. L.A. Co. Mus. nat. Hist., No. 82. 1966. Additional fish remains, mostly otoliths, from a Pleistocene deposit at Playa del Rey, California. Sci. Contrib. L.A. Co. Mus. nat. Hist., No. 119. 1968. Otoliths and other fish remains from the Timms Point Silt (early Pleistocene) at San Pedro, California. Sci. Contrib. L.A. Co. Mus. nat. Hist., No. 146. 1969. Appendix A: Fish remains, primarily otoliths, from a Ventura, California, Chumash village site (Ven-3). Mem. s. Calif. Acad. Sci., vol. 8, pp. 56-71. 1970. Fish remains, mostly otoliths and teeth, from the Palos Verdes Sand (late Pleistocene) of California. Sci. Contrib. L.A. Co. Mus. Nat. Hist., No. 199. ——_— 1972. Fish remains, primarily otoliths, from a coastal Indian midden (SLO-2) at Diablo Cove, San Luis Obispo County, California. Occas. Pap. San Luis Obispo Co. archaeol. Soc., vol. 7, pp. 101-120. 1975. Fish remains from a Chumash Village site (Ven-87) at Ventura, California. In 3500 years on one city block. Ventura Mission Plaza Archaeological Project 1974. R.S. Greenwood ed. Report prepared for the Re-development Agency, City of San Buenaventura Calif., pp. 435- 470. FITCH, J. E. & BROWNELL, R. L. Jr., 1968. Fish otoliths in cetacean stomachs and their importance in interpreting feeding habits. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada vol. 25(12) pp. 2561-2574. & —1972. Food habits of the Franciscana Pontoporia blainvillei (Cetacea: Platanistidae) from South America. Bull. mar. Sci., vol. 21(2) pp. 625-636. HUDDLESTON, R. W. & BARKER, L. W., 1978. Otoliths and other fish remains from the Chumash midden at Rincon Point (SBa-1) Santa Barbara-Ventura counties, California. Sci. Contrib. L.A. Co. Mus. nat. Hist., No. 289. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143 Reply to Dr Huddleston By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The current proposals on paranomenclature seem to have been inad- equately expressed. Their intention is not to provide for a separate nomen- clature for fragments of any and every kind. I agree that that would lead to chaos. On the other hand, there are whole groups of fossils where a dual tax- onomy is a practical necessity, and this dual taxonomy is inevitably expressed in a dual nomenclature. Under Article 24b, such dual nomenclatures are illegal. It is important to understand exactly how Article 24b applies to such dual nomenclatures. It does not provide that, for instance, all otolith names must yield to all whole-fish names (or to all names based on reasonably complete fossil fish skeletons); it means that, species by species, if the otolith was named first, then its name applies to the whole fish and all of its parts; if the whole fish or any other of its parts was named first, then that name applies to the otolith. The same is true for detached and associated conodonts; for nautiloids and rhyncholites; for holothurians and detached spicules; and so forth. Article 24b may thus be considered to impose a brake on taxonomy that is ultra vires the Code. It compels taxonomists to classify, for example, certain ammonites in the same taxa as their aptychi, even though the taxonomic mis- match between ammonites and aptychi has been a notorious fact for much more than a century. If, for example, a taxonomist wished to set up a classification of fishes based on vertebral centra, he might be thought to be wasting his effort, but he could not be accused of exceeding his rights. As in the cases of conodonts, ammonites and nautiloids, he would undoubtedly produce a taxonomy that would cut across the existing taxonomy of fishes, and he would need to express this using a separate nomenclature. But Article 24b takes no account of his taxonomic needs. It simply and flatly requires that, if a vertebral centrum is named before the whole fish, then its name must be used for the whole fish - and indeed for every fish in which that taxon - that “parataxon’”’ - is found. It is, after all, only in very recent years that fossil fish otoliths have been attributable with confidence to the same taxa as the whole fishes to which they belong, because even in Recent forms the associations had been published for only a few species. Dr Huddleston is no doubt familiar with the case of the London Clay fish fauna (Casier, 1966, Faune ichthyologique du London Clay, London, Brit. Mus., Nat. Hist.). This monograph carries an appendix on the otoliths by F.C. Stinton. The fauna consists of skulls preserved in three dimen- sions and washed out of the cliffs by wave action; and of otoliths recovered by washing quantities of clay in the laboratory. The following results emerged: of the 58 genera to which the skulls are referred, 52 are extinct; but of the 62 genera to which the otoliths are referred, 60 are extant. Only two genera out of 120 and one species out of 137 appear both in the list of skulls and in the list of otoliths. The differences go further: of 27 families considered by Casier and 40 by Stinton, only 11 are common to both lists. The Scombroids are represented by 24 species in Casier’s list and by one (known from four 144 Bulletin of Zoological No nienetailire otoliths) in Stinton’s. How far are these differences due to factors of deposi- tion and preservation, and how far to dual taxonomy? There never has been, there is not now, and there never can be an effec- tive bar to the setting up of fish parataxonomies based on ‘isolated elements such as scales, teeth, fin spines, vertebral centra, ichthyoliths, etc.’, to quote Dr Huddleston. The purpose of paranomenclature is to allow such parataxono- mies to coexist with “standard” taxonomy and with each other without causing nomenclatural chaos. Perhaps Dr Huddleston can say what exactly is the relationship between the taxonomies of fossil and Recent Elasmobranchs? Many zoologists seem to believe that nomenclature reflects some naturally inherent quality of the animals. However, as Article 1 of the Code shows, it is concerned, not directly with the animals themselves, but with tax- onomic concepts. It reflects merely the current ideas of zoologists, collectively and individually , on how the animals are to be ordered for the purposes of com- municating ideas about them. On the one hand, it is an instrument whereby taxo- nomic ideas can be shared and discussed; on the other, it is the mouthpiece of that human logic which rules all human intellectual activity. When, in any given group of animals, dual (or multiple) taxonomies are found to be useful, they will be set up, regardless of any quasi-legal sanctions prohibiting them. When they are not needed, the inherent indolence of humans will inhibit them. When, having been set up, they are found to serve no useful purpose, they will become obsolete. The Commission’s task is to frame regulations in the Code that will allow orderly communication to flow through agreed channels in all these sets of circumstances. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145 COMMENTS ON CRITERIA OF PUBLICATION AND A PETITION TO THE COMMISSION FOR A DEFINITIVE RULING ON THE PUBLICATION VALIDITY OF DISSERTATIONS ET AL. Z.N(S.)2328. By D. Haman and R.W. Huddleston (Chevron Oil Field Research Company, P.O. Box 446, La Habra, Calif. 90631) A situation was recently encountered where deficiencies in the Criteria of Publication (Chapter 3, Art. 8, 9) as detailed in the draft third edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomen- clature were evident. 2. This has prompted us to offer the following comments and to petition the Commission for a definitive declaration on the publication validity of dissertations, theses, and allied works. Comments on the Criteria of Publication 3. Neave, 1939, (Nomenclator Zoologicus, p. vii) observed that there was an ‘absence from the International Code of Zoologi- cal Nomenclature of any clear definition of what constitutes publi- cation’. The draft third edition of the Code, while attempting to rectify this situation, some 40 years later, has still not defined the criteria of publication with enough precision to satisfy zoologists. 4. Zoologists have already commented on the deficiencies of this chapter in the third edition (see Clark, 1979;Steyskal, 1979). We agree with the views put forward by these scientists particularly with respect to the usage of the imprecise words ‘numerous’ and ‘multiple’ in Art. 8(2) and Art. 9 (example). Precision with regard to these words is required and new definitions as to the intent and meaning of them in their context must be addressed by the Commission. Steyskal, 1979, raised a legitimate objection to the use of the word ‘identical’ (as in Art. 8(2)) which he regarded as too restrictive for the type of copies of articles. He indicated that by definition the use of this word would nullify copies that differed in size, binding, or the nature of material (paper or synthetic sheet). We suggest that the syntax of Art. 8(2) be changed to reflect the need to accommodate greater precision with these terms. We support the recommendation by Clark, 1979, that authors be required by mandate to submit a copy of their work to the Zoolo- gical Record for abstracting, indexing, etc. We strongly support the recommendation by Clark, 1979, that a more rapid method of publication of the Zoological Record be explored. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Petition for Definitive Declaration on Publication Validity of Dissertations et al. 5. In the Zoological Record (1977, Introduction, p. v), Theses, it is stated ‘these are not generally recognized as published in the conventional sense and are not, therefore, included in Zoolo- gical Record. However, it appears that theses from two sources may meet the requirements of publication (basically that they are printed in ink on paper and available without restrictions)’. The use of the words ‘generally’, ‘conventional’, ‘may meet’, and ‘basically’ in the above statement makes it valueless from a practical point of view. 6. The draft Code (Arts. 7-9) does not specifically address itself to the publication validity of a dissertation or allied work. The only reference to such a work is in the example following Art. 9(11) which essentially states that a thesis issued publicly for permanent scientific record in a printed or microfiche edition of multiple copies is a valid publication whereas a thesis deposited in a library and only issued in multiple copies as xerox or microfilm is not a publication. 7. This cannot be regarded as a definitive statement, parti- cularly in view of the discussions and comments on the validity of microform for publication (e.g. Crosskey et al., 1977, Durham, 1977, Sarjeant, 1977, Sohn, 1977, Dickins, 1978). Further, as discussed, the use of the word ‘multiple’ plus the imprecise use of xerox (vs. xerographic) detracts even more from the usefulness of the statement. 8. There exists among certain zoologists the arbitrary point of view that if they have access to a copy of a specific dissertation, thesis etc.; they regard it as a valid publication, while on the con- trary, those that do not have access to the work arbitrarily reject it as invalid. Thus, due to the lack of a definitive ruling by the Commission the Law of Priority is in danger of degenerating into a “Law of Have or Have Not.”’ Copies of most dissertations can be obtained by one means or another but whether these dissertations can be regarded as ‘readily available’ is a moot point. 9. If dissertations are to be regarded as publications the Commission must address itself to the question of whether other works pursued towards degrees below the doctorate level, e.g. master, bachelor, diploma, are valid publications. Indeed, one might be forced to consider the validity of ‘special project’ or ‘term’ papers. Bearing in mind the literature proliferation in ‘accepted’ journals the thought of validation of the above, which doubtless contain valuable data, is interesting. 10. The Commission might consider the following. Numer- ous dissertations are deposited in libraries or distributed privately. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147 Some dissertations are ‘printed’ and distributed. These latter disser- tations invariably bear the publishing house imprimatur. Might the imprimatur be considered as a criterion of publication validity? 11. We wish to support the statement by Durham, (1977, p.9) who stated that ‘the Commission should give major attention to the goals that need to be satisfied in legal “‘publication” and try to establish rules which will serve as legal “guidelines” rather than prescribing certain techniques and proscribing others’. 12. In the interests of the Principle of Priority (Art. 23) and in order to elucidate the Criteria of Publication (Arts. 7-9) the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is petitioned to: Provide a definitive, unequivocal, statement on the publi- cation validity of dissertations et al., irrespective of availa- bility and reproduction criteria. The following scientists within our Corporation support this peti- tion: W.H. Akers J.E. Kilgore R.C. Blaisdell B. Kohl K.D. Berry W.J. Lewis E.J. Bolin D. Mason F. Bourgeois M. Polugar E.W. Christensen C.S. Collie A.E. Dresser W.S. Drugg K.L. Finger G.W. Gregory G.S. Robinson N.J. Tartamella W.P.S. Ventress P.R. Wesendunk V.D. Wiggins C.F. Williams We are indebted to Chevron Oil Field Research Company for per- mission to submit this petition. REFERENCES CLARK, R.B., 1979. Draft third edition of the International Code of Zoolo- gical Nomenclature: Further Comments by Zoologists. Z.N.(S.)2250, (1) Chapter III, Criteria of Publication Arts. 7-9; Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 35, pt. 3, pp. 136-138. CROSSKEY, R.W. et al., 1977, Comments on microform as fublication; Z.N.(S.)2182, (2); Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34, pt. 3, pp. 134-135. DICKINS, J.M., 1978. Comment on microform as publication Z.N.(S.)2182; Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34, pt. 4, p. 201. DURHAM, J.W., 1977, The status of microform as publication Z.N.(S.)2182; Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34, pt. 1, p. 9. NEAVE, S.A., 1939, Nomenclator Zoologicus. The Zoological Society of London, v. 1-4 et supp. 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SARJEANT, W.A.S., 1977. The status of microform as publication Z.N.(S.) 2182; Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34, pt. 1, pp. 9-10. SOHN, I.G., 1977. Comments on microform as publication Z.N.(S.)2182; Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34, pt. 3, pp. 133, 134. STEYSKAL, 1979. Draft third edition of the International Code of Zoolo- gical Nomenclature: Further Comments by Zoologists Z.N.(S.)2250, Miscellaneous Comments; Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 35, pt. 3, pp. 138-144. THAIDIDAE (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ENTRY IN THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.)2307 By W.O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand). In Opinion 886 (1969) the Commission placed the family- group name THAIDIDAE Suter, 1912 on the Official List of Family Group names in Zoology, Name No. 439, the original reference being Man. N.Z. Moll: 42. 2. It appears that this will need to be emended in view of the existence of an earlier usage of the name as follows: THAISIDAE Suter, 1900, Subantarctic Islands of New Zealand, Art. 1: 1—57 THAISIDAE Jousseaume, 1888, Mém. Soc. zool. France vol. 1: 165—223 3. The International Commission is therefore requested to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology THAIDIDAE (correction of THAISIDAE) Jousseaume, 1888, Mém. Soc. zool. France vol. 1: 179. 4. I have already mentioned the earlier authorship in Rec. Auckland Inst. Mus. Vol. 15: 76, 1978. 5. At the same time, the name THAISIDAE Jousseaume, 1888, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology as an incorrect original spelling of THAIDIDAE. Bull. zvol. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149 VOLUTA PAPILIO LINK, 1807 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)1777 By W.0.C ernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand) Thirteen years ago the author made an application for the suppression as nomina oblita of the species-group names Voluta citrina, V. strigosa and V. leucostoma, all of Gmelin, 1791 (Cernohorsky, 1967b). Continued research has shown V. strigosa Gmelin to be a junior synonym of V. sanguisuga Linnaeus, 1758, thus rendering a suppression superfluous. Voluta citrina Gmelin, 1791, on the other hand, will have to be reinstated into costellarid nomenclature, due to insufficient usage of its junior synonym Mitra regina Sowerby, 1828, used only five times in the preceding 50 years. 2. The third name on the list was Voluta leucostoma Gmelin, 1791, for a taxon which was described and based on an illustration in Knorr, 1757-72. Both the original description and the illustration in Knorr (op. cit.) leave no doubt that V. leucostoma Gmelin, 1791, is a forgotten senior synonym of the subsequently described V. papilio Link, 1807 (Cernohorsky, 1967a). Menke, 1830, was the only author to have mentioned the name V. leucostoma in synonymy of Mitra scabriuscula Lamarck, 1811 (= Voluta papilio Link, 1807) between 1830 and 1967. Subsequent authors either used the non-binominal species-group name ‘Mitra Sphaerulata Martyn, 1784’ or the junior synonym Mitra scabriu- scula Lamarck, 1811, for the species under discussion until Tomlin & Winckworth, 1936, reintroduced Voluta Papilio into malacological literature during an evaluation of Link’s described species. Between 1936 and 1967 the name Voluta papilio has been used 17 times by 11 different authors and post-1967 another 13 times by 1] different authors, thus clearly demonstrating the continuous usage of the name papilio in malacological literature (see Appendix). Voluta papilio Link, 1807, is also the type species of the genus Neocancilla Cernohorsky, 1966, family MITRIDAE, which is an added reason for the stabilization of the species-group name. 3. In the interests of stability and universality of nomen- clature, and bearing in mind the universal usage of the name Voluta Papilio during the preceding 50 years, the Commission is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to direct that the species-group name Voluta papilio Link, 1807, be given precedence over Voluta leucostoma Gmelin, 1791, by any zoologist who considers the two taxa to be synonyms: Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) papilio Link, 1807, as published in the binomen Voluta papilio, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Voluta leucostoma Gmelin, 1791, whenever the two names are believed to be synonyms. (b) leucostoma Gmelin, 1791, as published in the bino- men Voluta leucostoma, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Voluta papilio Link, 1807, whenever the two names are believed to be synonyms. REFERENCES CERNOHORSKY, W. O. 1967a. The species of Mitridae established by J.F. Gmelin in the “Systema Naturae” of 1791. J/. Conch. 26, pp. 170, 173. 1967b. Voluta citrina Gmelin, 1791; V. strigosa Gmelin, 1791; V. leucostoma Gmelin, 1791 (Gastropoda): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1777. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24(1), pp. 53-54. GMELIN, J. F. 1791. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae. Ed. 13, vol. 1(6) p. 3457. KNORR, G. W. 1757-72. Vergniigen der Augen... Sammlung Schnecken und Muscheln. Nirnberg. Pt. 4, pl. 11, fig. 3. MENKE, C. T. 1830. Synopsis methodica Molluscorum. Pyrmont, p. 85. TOMLIN, J.R. le B. & WINCKWORTH, R. 1936. An Index to the species of Mollusca in the Beschreibung of H.F. Link. Proc. Malac. Soc. London, vol. 22, p. 41. APPENDIX USAGE OF THE NAME VOLUTA PAPILIO LINK, 1807 BETWEEN 1917 AND 1967 1936. Voluta papilio Link, Tomlin & Winckworth, Proc. Malac. Soc. London, vol. 22, p. 41. 1951 Mitra papilio Link, Hirase, Handb. illust. shells Japan, rev. ed. p. 100, pl. 100, fig. 14. 1952 Mitra papilio (Link), Kuroda & Habe, Check-list & Bibl. Mar. Moll. Japan, p.67. 1957 Chrysame papilio (Link), Kaicher, Indo-Pacific sea-shells, pl. 3, fig. 6. 1960 Mitra (Scabricola) papilio (Link), Azuma, Cat. Moll. Shikoku, Japan vol. 2, p. 69, pl. 34, fig. 21. 1961 Scabricola papilio (Link), Habe, Col. Illust. shells Japan vol. 2, p. 69, pl. 34, fig. 21. 1962 1962 1963 1964 1964 1965 1966 1966 1967 1967 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1971 1972 1974 1975 1975 1975 1976 1978 1978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151 Mitra papilio Link, Abbott, Sea shells world, p. 95, textfig. Mitra papilio (Link), J. Cate, Veliger vol. 5(2), p. 83. Mitra (Scabricola) papilio (Link) Shikama, Select. shells world col. 1, p. 92, pl. 74, fig. 1. Scabricola papilio (Link), Habe, Shells west. Pacific col. vol. 2, p. 109, pl. 34, fig. 21. Mitra papilio (Link), Cate & Burch, Veliger, vol. 6(3), p. 144. Mitra papilio (Link), Cernohorsky, Veliger, vol. 8(2), p. 93, pl. 14, fig. 22: Scabricola papilio (Link), Habe & Kosuge, Shells world col., vol. 2, p. 78. Neocancilla papilio (Link), Cernohorsky, Veliger, vol. 9(2), p. 111, text-fig. 20. Neocancilla papilio (Link), Habe & Kosuge, Stand. book Jap. shells col., vol. 3, p. 86, pl. 33, fig. 25. Mitra papilio (Link), Cernohorsky, J. Conch., vol. 26, p. 170, 173. Neocancilla papilio (Link), Cernohorsky, Mar. shells Pacific, vol. 1: 155, pl. 32, fig. 210. USAGE OF VOLUTA PAPILIO LINK, 1807, POST-1967 Neocancilla papilio (Link), Cernohorsky, J. Conch., vol. 26, p. 216. Neocancilla papilio (Link), Cernohorsky, Rev. suisse Zool., vol. 76, p. 962. Neocancilla papilio (Link), Cernohorsky, Bull. Auckland Inst. Mus., No. 8, p. 49, pl. 7, figs. 8, 9. Neocancilla papilio (Link), Kuroda & Habe, Shells Sagami Bay, p. 187. Neocancilla papilio (Link), Wilson & Gillett, Australian Shells, p.114, pl. 74, figs. 9, 9a. Neocancilla papilio Link, Hinton, Shells New Guinea & Indo-Pacific, p. 44, pl. 22, fig. 15. Mitra papilio Link, Dance, Encycl. shells, p. 175. Neocancilla papilio (Link), Salvat & Rives, Coquill. Polynésie, p. 337, fig. 290. Neocancilla papilio Link, Oliver, Shells world, p. 224, textfig. Mitra (Scabricola) papilio [sic] (Link), Tchang Si, Studia Marina Sinica, (10), p. 125, pl. 5. fig. 9. Neocancilla papilio (Link), Cernohorsky, Indo-Pacific Moll., vol. 3, p. 276, fig. 7. Neocancilla papilio Link, Hinton, Guide shells Papua New Guinea, p. 41, pl. 41, figs. 7, 7a. Neocancilla papilio Link, Hinton, Guide Austral. shells, p. 51, pl. 51. F392 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANTILOPE ZEBRA GRAY, 1838 (MAMMALIA) REVISED PROPOSALS FOR CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)1908 By W.F.H. Ansell (Zennor, St. Ives, Cornwall, U.K.) In 1970 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27, p. 104) 1 applied to the Commission to place the specific name zebra Gray, 1838, as published in the binomen Antilope zebra, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. My case, which rested on references to current use of that name for the Zebra Duiker, was contested by Kuhn (vol. 28, pp. 14-15) who cited 19th century use of Antilope doria Ogilby, 1837 for that species. He had in fact revived the use of the latter name in his own work, against the majority of con- temporary users, and in spite of the clear evidence in Ogilby’s works that A. doria is a junior objective synonym of Antilope mhorr Bennett, 1833, a species of gazelle. 2. The difference between me and Dr Kuhn on the above point can be overcome by a ruling that Antilope zebra Gray, 1838 is to be given precedence over Antilope doria Ogilby, 1837 when- ever the two names are regarded as synonyms. Dr Kuhn also, however, mentioned another senior synonym of A. zebra in his comment. This is Antilope zebrata Robert, 1836, and as the source of this name is obscure (and the name completely overlooked), I quote it here. 3. In L’Echo du Monde Savant for Sunday 1 May 1836 the editor, P.L.F. Gervais, said that he had already reported various geological and botanical observations made by Eugéne Robert in Iceland and Senegal, and said: ‘Nous donnerons dans la Notice qui va suivre l’exposé de quelques observations zoologiques faites au Sénégal par le méme voyageur’. The third paragraph of these observations reads: ‘Parmi les peaux destinés au commerce et qui provenaient de chasses dans le haut Sénégal, M. Robert signale, pour attirer l’attention des naturalistes-voyageurs sur l’animal auquel il appartient, une peau qui est évidemment d’antilope, mais qui, ayant été préparée, n’a pu fournir toutes les données qu’on aurait pu désirer. Cette peau, qui semble appartenir 4 une espéce de la taille des corinnes, est d’une couleur fauve-dorée avec dix ou onze bandes transversales brunes sur le dos. Ce systéme de coloration a bien quelque chose de celui du zébre, d’ot le nom d’Antilope zebrata par lequel M. Robert désigne provisoirement l’intéressant mammifére qu'il indique aux naturalistes; mais il rappelle encore mieux, sauf la teinte, celui des Thylacies, espéces de didelphes carnivores que Harris a le premier fait connaitre et que pendant longtemps on a nommés Didelphis cynocephala.’ Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153 4. The vivid comparison with the quite unrelated marsupial wolf shows clearly that the Zebra Duiker is meant, for it resembles in those respects the marsupial wolf more closely than any other striped mammal. Although Allen (1939, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 83, p. 489) ascribed the name to Gervais, it is clear that he was merely the editor and publisher (French: éditeur), and that both the name and the observations that make it available were provided by Robert and therefore that he, under Article SO, is the author of the name. It has never since, so far as I know, been used as a valid name. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is accordingly asked: (1) touse its plenary powers (a) tosuppress the specific name zebrata Robert, 1836, as published in the binomen Antilope zebrata, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to rule that the specific name zebra Gray, 1838, as published in the binomen Antilope zebra, is to be given precedence over the specific name doria Ogilby, 1837, as published in the binomen Antilope doria, whenever the two names are considered synonyms; (2) toplace on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) zebra Gray, 1838, as published in the binomen Antilope zebra, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over doria Ogilby, 1837, as published in the binomen Antilope doria, when- ever the two are considered synonyms; (b) doria Ogilby, 1837, as published in the binomen Antilope doria, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over zebra Gray, 1838, as published in the binomen Antilope zebra, when- ever the two names are considered synonyms; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology zebrata Robert, 1836, as published in the binomen Antilope zebrata, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above. £54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SPHINX TIPULIFORMIS CLERCK, 1759 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2138 By N.P. Kristensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen 9, Denmark) The aim of this application is to seek confirmation of the protection of the specific name tipuliformis Clerck, 1759 (Sphinx), which name has recently been set aside by Bradley, Fletcher & Whalley, 1972, in favour of the totally forgotten name salmachus Linnaeus, 1 758 (Sphinx). 2. Sphinx salmachus was described by Linnaeus, 1758, p. 493; to my knowledge it has subsequently been used as a valid species name only once, viz. by Hufnagel, 1766, p. 188, until it was re-introduced by Bradley, Fletcher & Whalley, 1972, p. 11. 3. Sphinx tipuliformis was described by Linnaeus’s com- patriot Clerck, 1759, pl. 9, fig. 1. Linnaeus, 1761, p. 289, adopted Clerck’s name in preference to salmachus and subsequently in later editions of Systema Naturae. Consequently Rottemburg, 1775, p. 106, wrote in his comments to Hufnagel’s table: ‘No. 19. Sph. Salmachus. Es ist dieses der Sphinx Tipuliformis Linnei’. 4. The fact that the synonymy between the specific names salmachus Linnaeus, 1758 (Sphinx) and tipuliformis Clerck, 1759 (Sphinx) was established by Linnaeus himself, is the best obtainable confirmation of its correctness. 5. The species in question is common and widespread in the palaearctic region, and following accidental introduction it has become established in N. America, Australia and New Zealand. It belongs to a rather intensively studied group of moths and moreover, due to its larval habits as a stem-borer in various Ribesiaceae, it is of frequent occurrence as a horticultural pest. Consequently the literature (pure and applied) concerning the species is very large; already more than half a century ago Dalla Torre & Strand, 1922, pp. 51-55, list about 200 entries under tipuliformis. 6. Important usages of tipuliformis Clerck (sometimes misspelled tipulaeformis or tipuliforme) from within the last 50 years include, e.g., Meyrick, 1927, p. 696; Gaede, 1929, p. 83; Hering, 1932, p. 171; Nordstr6m & Wahlgren, 1941, p. 335; Engelhardt, 1946, p. 41; Popescu-Gorj et al., 1958, p. 94; Forster & Wohlfahrt, 1960, p. 211; Hoffmeyer, 1960, p. 223; Nordstrém etal., 1961, p. 57; Edelsten et al., 1961, p. 343. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155 7. On the basis of the above facts and in accordance with Articles 23a-b and 79b, the Commission is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name salmachus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Sphinx salmachus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ftipuliformis Clerck, 1759, as pub- lished in the combination Sphinx tipuliformis ; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name _ salmachus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Sphinx salmachus and as suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority in (1) above. REFERENCES BRADLEY, J.D., FLETCHER, D.S. & WHALLEY, P.E.S., 1972. Lepidoptera. In Kloet, G.S. & Hincks, W.D., A Check List of British Insects (edn. 2). Handbk Ident. Br. Insects, vol. 11(3), 153pp. DALLA TORRE, K.W. von & STRAND, E., 1925. Aegeriidae. Lepidopterorum Catalogus, vol. 31, 202pp. EDELSTEN, H.M., FLETCHER, D.S. & COLLINS, R.J., 1961. In South, R.., The Moths of the British Isles (edn. 3) vol. 2,379 pp., 141 pls. London. ENGELHARDT, G.P., 1946. The North American clear-wing moths of the family Aegeriidae. Bull. U.S. natl. Mus., No. 190, VI + 222 pp., 32 pls. FORSTER, W. & WOHLFAHRT, T.A., 1960. Die Schmetterlinge Mitteleuropas, vol. 3 (Spinner und Schwarmer), VIII + 239 pp., 28 pls. Stuttgart. GAEDE, M., 1929. Schmetterlinge oder Lepidoptera II: Nachtfalter (Heterocera): Macrolepidoptera. Tierwelt Dtschl., vol. 14, 333 pp. HERING, M., 1932. Die Schmetterlinge nach ihren Arten dargestellt. Tierwelt Mitteleur., Erganzungsband 1, 545 pp. Leipzig. : HOFFMEYER, S., 1960. De danske spindere. (edn. 2) 270 pp., 24 pls. Arhus. HUFNAGEL, L., 1766. Zweite Tabelle, worinnen die Abendvogel angereiht werden. Berlin. Mag. vol. 2, pp. 174-195 LINNAEUS, C., 1758. Systema naturae, per regna tria naturae, (edn. 10) vol. 1, 824 pp. 1761. Fauna svecica sistens animalia Sveciae regni, (edn. 2), 578 pp., Stockholm. MEYRICK, E., 1927. A revised handbook of British Lepidoptera, 914 pp. London. NORDSTROM, F., OPHEIM, M. & SOTAVALTA, O., 1961. De Fennoskandiska Svarmarnas och Spinnarnas Utbredning. Lund Univ. Aarsskr. (N.F. Afd. 2) vol. 57(4) 87pp., 181 maps, Lund. —— & WAHLGREN, E., 1941. Svenska Fjdrilar, 353 pp., 50 pls. Stockholm. 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature POPESCU-GORJ, A., NICULESCU, E. & ALEXINSCHI, A., 1958. Lepidoptera Familia Aegeriidae. Fauna Repub. pop. rom., Insecta, vol. 11(1), 195 pp., 5 pls. Bukarest. ROTTEMBURG, S.A. von, 1775. Anmerkungen zu den Hufnagelischen Tabellen der Schmetterlinge 2. Der Naturforscher vol. 7, pp. 105-112. SESIA ANDRENAEFORMIS LASPEYRES, 1801 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION Z.N.(S.)2139 By N.P. Kristensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen 0, Denmark) The aim of this application is to seek confirmation of the protection of the specific name andrenaeformis Laspeyres, 1801 (Sesia), which name has recently been set aside by Bradley, Fletcher & Whalley, 1972, in favour of the totally forgotten name anthraciniformis Esper, 1798 (Sphinx). 2. Sphinx anthraciniformis was described by Esper on p.29 in the Supplement Band (2 Abschn.) Abendschmetterlinge of his Die Schmetterlinge in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschrei- bungen. There has been some confusion concerning the date of publication of the name. Dalla Torre & Strand, 1922, p. 11, stated the description to be “post 1801’’, but Sherborn & Woodward, 1901, p. 140, have provided evidence that the pages 17-40 of the work in question were probably published in 1797 (quoting from Esper’s p. 32 the words “im abgewichenen 1797 Jahre’’). In Sherborn, 1902, p. 57, the name anthraciniformis was dated 1798 (in square brackets, indicating the uncertainty) and this dating was accepted by Bradley, Fletcher & Whalley, 1972. 3 I am not aware that the specific name anthraciniformis has been used in the original spelling until it was re-introduced by Bradley, Fletcher & Whalley, 1972, p. 11, but in the misspelled version anthraciformis it was applied as a valid species name by a number of authors in the nineteenth century, probably latest by Boisduval, 1874, p. 398. The references to usages by, and after, Rouast, 1883, given by Dalla Torre & Strand, 1922, p. 11, are erroneous; they concern a Mediterranean’ species, Sesia anthraciformis Rambur, 1832, now referred to the genus Chamaesphecia (s. lat.). 4. Sesia andrenaeformis was described by Laspeyres in 1801; the name has been used as a valid species name by the majority of subsequent authors. Bull. zool. Nomencel. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157 5. The species in question is generally local and uncommon (it is distributed from southern England through central Europe to Asia Minor and central USSR), but since it belongs to a rather intensively studied group of moths it has been treated in a consider- able literature. References to important usages of andrenaeformis within the last 5O years include, e.g. Meyrick, 1928, p. 697, mis- spelled andreniformis; Hering, 1932, p. 171; Gaede, 1933, p. 232; Lhomme, 1935-49, p. 514; Bergmann, 1953, p. 489; Gozmany, 1955, p. 44; Popescu-Gorj et al., 1958, p. 80; Forster & Wohlfahrt, 1960, p. 210; Edelsten et al., 1961, p. 342; Schnaider et al., 1961, p. 26. 6. On the basis of the above facts and in accordance with Articles 23a-b and 79b, I herewith request the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name anthraciniformis Esper, 1798, as published in the binomen Sphinx anthraciniformis, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name andrenaeformis Laspeyres, 1801, as published in the binomen Sesia andrenaeformis; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name anthraciniformis Esper, 1798, as published in the combination Sphinx anthraciniformis, and suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority in (1) above. REFERENCES BERGMANN, A., 1953. Die Grossschmetterlinge Mitteldeutschiands, vol. 3 (Spinner und Schwarmer), XII + 551 pp., 56 pls. Jena. BOISDUVAL, J.-A., 1874. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes (Species général des Lépidoptéres. Hétérocéres), vol. 1, 568 pp., Paris. BRADLEY, J.D., FLETCHER, D.S. & WHALLEY, P.E.S., 1972. Lepidoptera. In Kloet, G.S. & Hincks, W.D., A Check List of British Insects (edn 2). Handbk. Ident. Br. Insects, vol. 11(3), 153 pp. DALLA TORRE, K.W. von & STRAND, E., 1925. Aegeriidae. Lepidopterorum Catalogus, vol. 31, 202 pp. EDELSTEN, H.M., FLETCHER, D.S. & COLLINS, R.J., 1961. Jn South, R., The Moths of the British Isles (edn 3), vol. 2,379 pp., 141 pls. London. FORSTER, W. & WOHLFAHRT, T.A., 1960. Die Schmetterlinge Mitteleuropas, vol. 3 (Spinner und Schwarmer), VIII + 239 pp., 28 pls. Stuttgart. GAEDE, M., 1929. Schmetterlinge oder Lepidoptera II: Nachfalter (Heterocera): Macrolepidoptera. Tierwelt Dtl., vol. 14, 333 pp. GOZMANY, L., 1955. Molylepkek III. Microlepidoptera II]. Magyarorszag Allatvilaga Fauna Hungarica, vol. 5, 64pp. Budapest. 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature HERING, M., 1932. Die Schmetterlinge nach ihren Arten dargestellt. Tierwelt Mitteleur.,. Erganzungsband 1, 545 pp. Leipzig. LASPEYRES, J.H., 1801. Sesiae Europaeae iconibus et descriptionibus illustratae, 32pp., | pl. Berlin. LHOMME, L., 1935-49. Catalogue des Lépidopteres de France et de Belgique, vol. 2, pp. 489-1253, Le Carriol. MEYRICK, E., 1928. A revised handbook of British Lepidoptera, 914 pp. London. POPESCU-GORJ, A., NICULESCU, E. & ALEXINSCHI, A., 1958. Lepidoptera Familia Aegeriidae. Fauna Repub. pop. rom. (Insecta) vol. 11(1), 195 pp., 5 pl., Bukarest. ROUAST, G., 1883. Catalogue des Chenilles Européennes connues. Annls Soc. linn. Lyon, vol. 29, pp. 251-363. SCHNAIDER, J., SCHNAIDER, J., & SCHNAIDER, Z., 1961. Klucze do oznaczania owadodw polski, vol. XXVII, 37 Motyle-Lepidoptera, Prze- zierniki-Aegeriidae. 42 pp., VI pls. Warszawa. SHERBORN, C.D., 1902. Index Animalium, vol. 1, 1758-1800, 1195 pp. Cambridge. —— & WOODWARD, B.B., 1901. The Dates of Esper’s “Schmetterlinge’’. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.(7) Vol. 7, pp. 137-140. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159 PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE CHERMES FUSCA ZETTERSTEDT, 1828, A JUNIOR SECONDARY HOMONYM IN PSYLLA GEOFFROY, 1762 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA). Z.NAS.)2149 By Pavel Lauterer (Moravian Museum, Brno, Czechoslovakia) I propose that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature rule that the specific name fusca Zetterstedt, 1828, as published in the binomen Chermes fusca, is to be preferred to the specific name fusca Geoffroy, 1785, in Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Psylla fusca, whenever those names are combined with the generic name Psylla Geoffroy, 1762. The details of the case are set out below. 2. As Psylla fusca Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, p. 224, described an inadequately defined species, the name of which can only be regarded as a nomen dubium. Moreover, only parts of Geoffroy’s collection survive — the Coleoptera and part of the Lepidoptera — in the Musée d’Histoire Naturelle at Autun, and in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris. Another part of the collection, including the type of P. fusca, was deposited in an unnamed small museum in Paris (not the Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle), as ascertained from archival records by the curator of the Musée d’Histoire Naturelle at Autun, and was in very bad condition already in the last century. No reports on this part of the collection are available in the present century, and my search for it has been fruitless. Thus it appears nearly certain that the type material of Psyila fusca Geoffroy has not been preserved. 3. Geoffroy’s description of Psylla fusca reads: ‘8. P. fusca. La Psylle brune 4 antennes sétacées et ailes nerveuses. Long. 1% lig. Larg. *A lig. P. fusca, antennis setaceis laevibus, alis nervosis.’ This, as well as his description of several other species of Psylla in Fourcroy’s work, suggests a species of Psocoptera rather than PSYLLOIDEA, as was pointed out by Loew (1882). Psylla fusca Geoffroy, 1785, has eluded the attention of subsequent specialists and has not been recorded, even for the purposes of homonymy, in the basic catalogues of the PSYLLOIDEA (Oshanin, 1912; Aulmann, 1913; Klimaszewski, 1973), or in any catalogue of the Psocoptera. 4. Chermes fusca Zetterstedt, 1828, p. 552 was transferred to Psylla by Reuter, 1881, p. 160 and Loew, 1882, p. 239, indepen- dently. The binomen Psylla fusca (Zetterstedt) has been used unequivocally throughout the literature ever since. As a junior Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature secondary homonym of Psylla fusca Geoffroy, 1785, it should be replaced by its junior subjective synonym Psylla perspicillata Flor, 1861. This replacing was published by Lauterer, 1976, p. 115 with note, that he is simultaneously proposing to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to validate the name Psylla fusca (Zetterstedt) and suppress the name Psylla fusca Geoffroy, 1785. Otherwise, that name was not only not proposed as a replacement name for P. fusca (Zetterstedt), it was not so used on the only subsequent occasion when it was cited as a valid name (Reuter, 1876, Meddn Soc. Fauna Flora fenn., vol. 1, p. 71). Other- wise it has been completely overlooked and was not even listed by Klimaszewski, 1973. 5. The binomen Psylla fusca (Zetterstedt) has been used for nearly 100 years in dozens of papers to denote a common Euro- pean species (15 papers by a dozen authors are listed in the Appendix); its first junior subjective synonym has not been used as a valid name for over 100 years; its senior secondary homonym, Psylla fusca Geoffroy, 1785, is a nomen dubium which may apply to a Psocopteran species, and which should be prevented from applying to a species of the PPYLLOIDEA. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name fusca Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Psylla fusca, is not to be used in preference to the specific name fusca Zetterstedt, 1828, as published in the binomen Chermes fusca, whenever those names are combined with the generic name Psylla Geoffroy, L762. (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) the specific name fusca Zetterstedt, 1828, as pub- lished in the binomen Chermes fusca, with an endorsement that it is to be preferred to the specific name fusca Geoffroy, in Fourcroy, 1785, as pub- lished in the binomen Psylla fusca, whenever those names are combined with the generic name Psylla Geoffroy, 1762; the specific name fusca Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Psylla fusca, with an endorsement that it is not to be used in preference to the specific name fusca Zetterstedt, 1828, as pub- lished in the binomen Chermes fusca, whenever those names are combined with the generic name Psylla Geoffroy, 1762. (b — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161 REFERENCES AULMANN, G. 1913. Psyllidarum Catalogus, pp. 92, Berlin FOURCROY, A. F. 1785. Entomologia parisiensis, sive catalogus insectorum, quae in agro parisiensi reperiuntur, pp. 544, Paris GEOFFROY, E. L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, vol. 1, pp. 1-523, Paris KLIMASZEWSKI, S. M. 1973. The jumping plant lice or psyllids (Homoptera, Psyllodea) of the Palaearctic. An annotated checklist, Ann. zool., Warszawa, vol. 30. pp. 155-286 LAUTERER, P. 1976. Psyllids of wetland nature reserves of the German Democratic Republic, with notes on their biology, taxonomy and zoo- geography (Homoptera, Psylloidea), Faun. Abh., Dresden, vol. 6, pp. 111-122 LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema naturae. 10 edit., pp. 824, Stockholm LOEW, F. 1882. Revision der paldarktischen Psylloden in Hinsicht auf Syste- matik und Synonymie, Verh. k. k. zool. bot. Ges. Wien, vol. 32, pp. 227-254 OSHANIN, B. 1912. Katalog der paléarktischen Hemipteren (Heteroptera, Homoptera — Auchenorhyncha und Psylloideae), pp. XVI + 187, Berlin REUTER, O. M., 1876. Catalogus Psyllidarum in Fennia hactenus lectarum, Meddn Soc. Fauna Flora fenn. vol. 1, pp. 69-77 1881. Till kinnedomen om sveriges psylloder, Entomol. Tidskr. vol. ae pp. 145-176 ZETTERSTEDT, J. W. 1828. Fauna insecturum Lapponica, pp. 563, Hamburg The binomen Psylla fusca (Zetterstedt, 1828) is quoted in following literature: DOBREANU, E. & MANOLACHE, C. 1962. Homoptera Psylloidea (In:) Fauna Republicii Populare Romine, Insecta, Bucuresti, vol. 8, fasc. 3, pp. 376 (p. 176) HAUPT, H. 1936. Psylloidea (In:) BROHMER, P., EHRMANN, P., ULMER, G. Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, Leipzig, Bd. 4, Lief. vol. 3, pp. 221-252 (p. 232) KLIMASZEWSKI, S. M. 1973. The jumping plant lice or psyllids (Homoptera, Psyllodea) of the Palaearctic. An annotated check-list, Ann. zool., Warszawa, vol. 30, pp. 155—286 (p. 207) 1975. Psyllodea, koliszki (In:) Fauna Polski vol. 3, Warszawa, pp. 295 (p. 140) LINDBERG, H. & OSSIANNILSSON, F. 1960. Verzeichnis der Ostfennoskan- dischen Homoptera Psyllina, Fauna fenn., Helsinki, vol. 8, pp. 1-21 (p. 10) LOGINOVA, M. M. 1964. Podotrjad Psyllinea — psillidy, ili listobloski (In:) Opredelitel nasekomych evropejskoj chasti SSSR vol. 1, Moskva — Leningrad, pp. 437—482 (p. 464) OBENBERGER, J. 1957. Entomologie, vol. 3, Praha, pp. 467 (p. 196) OSSIANNILSSON, F. 1952. Catalogus insectorum Sueciae, 12, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Psylloidea, Opusc. ent., Lund, vol. 17. pp. 193-200 (p. 196) 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1970. Contributions to the knowledge of Swedish psyllids (Hem. Psylloidea) 1-4, Ent. scand., Lund, vol. 1, pp. 135-144 (p. 138) PAVOLVSKIJ, E. N. & al. 1955 Vrediteli lesa, Moskva — Leningrad, pp. 1097 (p. 776) PFEFFER, A. 1954. Lesnickdé zoologie vol. 2, Praha, pp. 622 (p. 87) PODDUBNY/J, A. G. 1975. Psillidy Moldavii, Kishinev, pp. 102 (p. 21) SCHAEFFER, H. A. 1949. Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der Psylliden der Schweiz, Mitt. schweiz. ent. Ges., Bern, vol. 22, pp. 1-96 (p. 47) VONDRACEK, K, 1957. Mery — Psylloidea (In:) Fauna CSR, vol. 9, Praha, pp. 431 (p. 223) WAGNER, W. & FRANZ, H. 1961. Uberfamilie Stenorrhyncha (Psylloidea) (In:) FRANZ, H., Die Nordostalpen im Spiegel ihrer Landtierwelt, vol. 2, Innsbruck, pp. 158-179 (p. 165) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163 LAMPROCABERA INOQUE, 1958 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2160. By H. Inoue (Biological Laboratory, Otsuma Woman’s University, Sanbancho, Chiyodaku, Tokyo, Japan). The object of the present application is to request the use of the plenary powers under Article 70 of the Code in the case of a misidentified type species. 2. The generic name Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 (Tinea vol. 4, p. 253) was established in the family GEOMETRIDAE having Deilinia punctata Warren, 1894 (Novit. zool. vol. 1, p. 405) as the type species by original designation. The generic diagnosis of Lamprocabera and the type-species designation were based on specimens in my collection determined as Deilinia punctata Warren, 1894, then believed to be a senior subjective synonym of Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) vol. 19, p. 198). These nominal species were synonymized by Swinhoe, 1902 (Trans. ent. Soc. London. vol. for 1902, p. 63) and the synonymy was followed by other authors, including Prout, 1915, (in Seitz, Gross- Schmett. Erde vol. 4, p. 318, pl. 15, row g [figure of candidaria, as punctata on legend] ); In 1973 I examined the type specimens of Deéilinia punctata Warren and Bapta candidaria Leech at the British Museum (Natural History) in London. The study revealed that: (i) Deilinia punctata Warren and Bapta candidaria Leech are not subjective synonyms, as had been previously thought, and that they belong to different genera. (ii) Deilinia punctata is congeneric with Myrteta planaria Walker, 1861 (List Specimens lepid. Insects Colin Br. Mus. vol. 23, p. 831), the type species of Myrteta Walker, 1861. (iii) The specimens in my collection determined as Deilinia punctata Warren had been misidentified and should be determined as Bapta candidaria Leech. 4. If the original designation is set aside and the type species is then designated as Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897 (= Deilinia punctata Warren sensu Inoue, 1958), the use of the generic name Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958, for Bapta candidaria can be maintained. 5. If the original designation is sustained then Lamprocabera Inoue would become a junior subjective synonym of Myrteta Walker, 1861, and a new generic name would have to be Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature established for Bapta candidaria Leech. 6. Since 1958 Lamprocabera \Inoue, 1958, has been used in Japan for Deilinia punctata sensu Inoue (1958, in Esaki et al., 1959, Icones Heterocerorum Japonicorum in Coloribus naturalibus) and has become a widely used generic name in Japan. In view of the facts outlined above, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the original desig- nation of type species for the genus Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958, and then to designate Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897, as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Bapta candidaria Leech, 1897; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name candidaria Leech, 1897, as published in the binomen Bapta candidaria (specific name of the type species of Lamprocabera Inoue, 1958). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165 CALAMOECIA AUSTRALICA SARS, 1908 AND CALAMOECIA AUSTRALIS (SEARLE, 1911) (CRUSTACEA, COPEPODA): PROPOSALS TO REMOVE THE CONFUSION. Z.N.(S.)2242 By 1.A.E. Bayly (Zoology Department, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia) In 1955 Jolly (Hydrobiologia vol. 7(3), pp. 279—284) synonymised Brunella Smith, 1909, Trans. linn. Soc. London (2) Zool. vol. 11(4), p. 87 with Calamoecia Brady, 1906, Proc. zool. Soc. London for 1906, p. 696 and this was accepted by subsequent authors including Bayly, 1961, Australian J. mar. freshwat. Res. vol. 12, pp. 54-91; 1962, ibid., vol. 13, pp. 252-264; 1979, ibid., vol. 30, pp. 103-127; 1973, Bull. austr. Soc. Limnol. vol. 5, pp. 41- 42. The genus Calamoecia thus came to contain (among other species) both Calamoecia australica Sars, 1908, Arch. math. Natur- vidensk. vol. 29(7), p. 12 and Calamoecia australis (Searle, 1911) Victorian Nat. vol. 27, p. 176, the latter having been first described as a species of Brunella. The obvious potential for confusion is increased by the fact that the two species have contiguous distributions in the inland waters of the State of Victoria, Australia. 2. In 1973 Bayly proposed that these two specific names should be treated as secondary homonyms and that Brunella expansa Sars, 1912 should be adopted in place of C. australis (Searle). However, there is no homonymy involved. The present application therefore seeks to place that proposal on a proper footing. 3. It is possible that Brunella viridis Searle, 1911, Victorian Nat. vol. 27, p. 177, which was published simultaneously with B. australis, might be regarded as a synonym of the latter and, being senior to B. expansa Sars, 1912, be brought forward as a replace- ment name. Bayly (1961) showed, however, that the holotype of B. viridis is so damaged as to be indeterminable and that Searle’s description is inadequate. B. viridis is therefore best regarded as a nomen dubium; and while it would be inconsistent with that view to treat australis as a synonym of B. viridis and select it as the valid name under Article 24a, it is important to ensure that such action cannot be taken in favour of B. viridis. 4. The syntypes of Brunella expansa Sars, 1912, are preserved in the Zoological Museum of the University of Oslo and are in excellent condition. | am grateful to Dr. Marit E. Christiansen for examining them and on her advice I hereby designate specimen number F.17088a as lectotype. The species was first described by Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Sars in Arch. Math. Naturvidensk. vol. 32 (13), pp, 9-10, 1912. 5i The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is accordingly requested: (1) (2) (3) 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) australis Searle, 1911, as published in the binomen Brunella australis ; (b) viridis Searle, 1911, as published in the binomen Brunella viridis ; to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) australica Sars, 1908, as published in the binomen Calamoecia australica; (b) expansa Sars, 1912, as published in the binomen Brunella expansa; to place the following specific names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoo- logy: (a) australis Searle, 1911, as published in the binomen Brunella australis ; (b) viridis Searle, 1911, as published in the binomen Brunella viridis. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167 PAPILIONIDAE (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): REQUEST FOR REVISION OF THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.)2245 By Lieut. Col. C.F. Cowan (4 Thornfield Terrace, Grange-over- Sands, Cumbria, LA11 7DR, England) PAPILIONIDAE [Leach], [1815] is name number 233 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. It was so placed in 1958 by Direction 99 after the ruling by Opinion 278 that Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758 should be the type species of the genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758. No earlier Family-Group Names were then suppressed, nor even considered. 2. Latreille, [1802] (in Sonnini’s Buffon, 14 volumes, 1801-1805), Hist. nat. gén. Partic. Crust. Ins. vol. 3, pp. 387-418 was the first author to classify the Lepidoptera in the orthodox way by families named after included genera, and three of his six families are already on the Official List. His text was in French, with “‘latinised” scientific names added in italics down to the generic level. Only the latter are mentioned here. His classification was:— Family Included genera 1. PAPILIONIDES Papilio (in 7 infra-generic groups) + Hesperia SPHINGIDES Sphinx + 4 other genera BOMBYCINAE Bombyx (in 6 infra-generic groups) + 3 genera PHALAENITES Phalaena + 4 other genera TORTRICES eight genera PTEROPHORII Pterophorus and Orneodes of these six, PHALAENITES (founded on a since suppressed generic name) has been rejected, while SPHINGIDAE (name number 89), BOMBYCIDAE (number 135) and TORTRICIDAE (number 138) are already on the Official List, credited to Latreille in this work. But, as noted in the opening paragraph above, PAPILIONIDAE is not. Latreille’s proposal of it, with diagnosis of the family and of the genus Papilio (on p. 387), and including Papilio machaon in his first infra-generic group (p. 388), is abso- lutely valid and should be recognised. 3. The International Commission is accordingly requested to: — (1) delete the existing entry for Name Number 233 in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and, having done so, AAR wr Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the Family-Group Name PAPILIONIDAE (Correction of PAPILIONIDES) Latreille, [1802] (in Sonnini Suite 4 Buffon), Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. vol. 3, p. 387, type-genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, and (3) place on the Official Index of rejected and invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name PAPILIONIDES Latreille, [1802] (in Sonnini, Suite » Buffon), Hist. nat. gén partic. Crust. Ins. vol. 3, p. 387, incorrect original spelling of PAPILIONIDAE. [NOTE:— The date of Latreille’s work cited above has usually been cited as “11803]” following Griffin, 1938, J. Soc. Biblphy nat. Hist. vol. 1(5), p. 157. I am indebted to Professor Cl. Dupuis for directing my attention to the Journal typographique et bibliographique, 6¢€ année, No. VI, 15 Brumaire, an 11, i.e. [6 November, 1802], where the publication of Latreille’s work is announced.] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169 PTINELLA MOTSCHULSKY, 1844 AND NEPHANES THOMSON, 1859: REQUEST FOR CONSERVATION (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.)2258 By Olof Bistrém (Zoological Museum of the University, Helsinki, Finland) Motschulsky (1844, p. 819) described the genus Ptinella. He included in the genus five species. Of these, P. canaliculata Markel and P. formicaria Motschulsky have never since been used as valid names and their identity is unknown. P. bicolor Motschulsky, 1844, p. 820 is listed by Cziki (1911) as P. bicolor Motschulsky, 1845, p. 512 in the synonymy of Pteryx suturalis (Heer, 1841, p. 375) and P. haemorrhoidale Motschulsky, 1844, p. 820 is listed by Cziki (1911) as P. haemorrhoidale Motschulsky, 1845, p. 508 in the synonymy of Ptilium myrmecophilum (Allibert, 1844, p. 53). P. minutissima Weber is nowadays known as Ptilium minutissimum (Ljungh, 1804, p. 64) according to Cziki (1911). The attribution to Weber was simply a case of mistaken authorship. None of the species are at present included in the genus Ptinella. Yet one of them should be designated as type species. Later Motschulsky (1845) gave a more detailed description of the genus. Then he also included Ptinella aptera (described as Ptilium apterum Guérin- Méneville, 1839, p. 621). 2. Gist! (1857) introduced the name Cleopterium and described three species in it. They are all listed as synonyms of Ptinella aptera by Cziki (1911). Thomson (1859) described the genus Neuglenes and he designated Ptilium apterum Guér. to be the type species for it. For a while this name was used (e.g. Flach, 1889), but not during this century. Matthews (1872) synonymized Neuglenes with Ptinella. 4. After Matthews (1862 and 1872) and Motschulsky (1868) the name Ptinella began to cover the same species as it does today. The generic name has been universally used during the twentieth century. 5. Matthews (1858, p. 6108) described the genus Jitan with Trichopteryx abbreviatella Heer, 1841 (= Trichopteryx titan Newman, 1834, p. 201) as the type species for the genus. Later (Matthews, 1860) he believed that this generic name was preoccu- pied by Titanus Audinet-Serville, 1832 and he replaced it with the name Llachys. In fact no homonymy exists here. 6. The generic name Nephanes was introduced by Thomson (1859, p. 62) who designated Trichopteryx abbreviatella Heer, 1841 (=Trichopteryx titan Newm.) to be the type species for Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the genus. After Thomson the name Nephanes was used by several authors, such as Matthews (1872), Flach (1889) and Reitter (1909). The name has been universally used for a century, although it is in fact a junior objective synonym of the name Titan Matth. 7. Under the rules there is a threat to current use of the names Ptinella and Nephanes — current use exemplified by Sainte- Claire Deville (1935), Horion (1949), Hatch (1957), Lindroth (1960), Arnett (1961), Hansen (1964), Kryzhanovskij (1965), Besuchet (1971), Johnson (1975) and Pope (1977). To preserve current use I suggest that the Commission designate Ptilium apterum to be the type species of Prinella, and suppress Titan as an unused senior synonym of Nephanes. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the genus Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844, and, having done so, (a) to designate Ptilium apterum Guérin-Méneville, 1839 to be the type species of that genus; (b) to suppress the generic name Titan Matthews, 1858 (type species: Trichopteryx abbreviatella Heer, 1841) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (a) Ptinella Motschulsky 1844 (gender: feminine), type species as designated under (1) above, Ptilium apterum Guérin-Méneville, 1839; (b) Nephanes Thomson, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation, Trichopteryx abbreviatella Heer, 1841 (= Trichopteryx titan Newman, 1834); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (a) apterum Guérin-Méneville, 1839 as published in the binomen Ptilium apterum (specific name of type species of the genus Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844); (b) titan Newman, 1834 as published in the binomen Trichopteryx titan (senior synonym of Trichop- teryx abbreviatella Heer, 1841, the specific name of the type species of Nephanes Thomson, 1859); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Titan Matthews, 1848; suppressed under (1) (b) above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171 REFERENCES ALLIBERT, A., 1844. Monographie du genre Trichopteryx. Revue Zool. Vol. 7, pp. 51-54. ARNETT, R.H., 1961. The Beetles of the United States. Part II, Washington, D.C., pp. 211-368. BESUCHET, C., 1971. Fam. Ptiliidae, in Freude-Harde-Lohse, Die Kdfer Mitteleuropas vol. 3, pp. 311-334. CZIKI, E., 1911. Hydroscaphidae, Ptiliidae. Coleopterorum Catalogus vol. 32, pp. 1-61. FLACH, K., 1889. Bestimmungstabelle der Trichopterygidae des europdischen Faunengebietes. Verh. zool. bot. Ges. Wien vol. 39, pp. 481-532. GISTL, J., 1857. Achthundert und zwanzig neue oder unbeschriebene wir- bellose Thiere. Vacuna vol. 2, pp. 513-606. GUERIN- MENEVILLE, F., 1839. Dietionnaire pittoresque d'histoire naturelle et des phénoménes de la nature. Paris. HANSEN, V., 1964. Fortegnelse over Danmarks biller. Entomol. Meddel. vol. 33, pp. 1-507. HATCH, M.H., 1957. The Beetles of the Pacific Northwest. Part II. Seattle, pp. 1-384. HEER, O., 1841. Fauna Coleopterorum Helvetica. 1. Turici, pp. 1-652. HORION, A., 1949. Faunistik der Mitteleuropdischen Kafer IJ. Frankfurt am Main, pp. 1-388. JOHNSON, C., 1975. Five species of Ptiliidae (Col.) new to Britain, and corrections to the British list of the family. Entomol. Gaz. vol. 26, pp. 211-223. KRYZHANOVSKIJ, O.L., 1965. Sem. Ptiliidae (Trichopterygidae). Perokrylki. Opred. Faune SSSR vol. 89, pp. 162-163. LINDROTH, C.H. (ed.) 1960. Catalogus Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. Lund, pp. 1-476. MATTHEWS, A., 1858. Asynonymic list of the British Trichopterygidae. Zoologist vol. 16, pp.6104-6111. 1860. Descriptions of some new species. Zoologist vol. 18, pp. 7063- 7068. 1862. A review of the genus Ptinella. Zoologist vol. 20, pp. 8053— 8060. 1872. Trichopterygia illustrata et descripta. London, pp. 1-188. MOTSCHULSKY, V. von, 1844. Bemerkungen zu dem im V'©2 Bande der Zeitschrift fiir die Entomologie p.192 von H™ Maerkel gegebenen “Beitraege zur Kenntniss der unter Ameisen lebenden Insekten.” Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, vol. 17, pp. 812-823. 1845. Uber die Ptilien Russlands. Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou vol. 18, pp. 504—539. 1868. Enumération des Nouvelles Espéces de Coléoptéres rapportés de ses voyages. Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, vol. 41, pp. 170-201. NEWMAN, E., 1834. Entomological Notes. Entomol. Mag. vol. 2, pp. 200-205. POPE, R.D. 1977. in Kloet & Hincks, A check list of British insects (II. ed.), Part 3: Coleoptera and Strepsiptera. — Handb. Indent. Brit. Ins. XI(3), pp. 1—105. 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REITTER, E. 1909. Fauna Germanica II. — Stuttgart, pp. 1-392 SAINTE-CLAIRE DEVILLE, J. 1935. Catalogue raisonné des Coléoptéres de France. L ’A beille vol. 36, pp. 161-264. THOMSON, C.G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, 1. Tom.-Lund, pp. 1—290. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173 APHIS CALLUNAE THEOBALD, 1915: PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (INSECTA, APHIDOIDEA), Z.N.(S.)2283 By H.L.G. Stroyan (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Plant Pathology Laboratory, Harpenden, Herts. ) 1. Francis Walker (1852, List of the Specimens of Homop- terous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum, vol. 4, p. 1039) described a new aphid species Aphis betulina from England, without indicating a host plant except in so far as the specific epithet that he gave to it Suggested an association with birch (Betula). He enumerated no specimens, and described only the winged viviparous female morph. 2. Aphis betulina Walker has at no time been used as the valid name of a taxon in primary literature from 1852 until the present day, and no author has claimed to recognize it. 3. John Doncaster (1961, Francis Walker's Aphids, p. 36) cited the original description of Aphis betulina and regarded it asa nomen dubium, stating that no materia] whereby the species might be recognized had been found in any of the collections of Walker material then known. These known collections were listed in another part of the same work (ibid., p. 4). 4. F.V. Theobald (1915, Entomologist, vol. 48, pp. 260- 261) described a new aphid species Aphis callunae from Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull in the New Forest, England. Type material is extant in the collection of the British Museum (Natural History), London. 5. Aphis callunae Theobald is well known to European aphidologists, and has been discussed or referred to under this name by the following authors during the last 50 years: (1) Hille Ris Lambers, D., 1934. Notes on Theobald’s ‘The Plant-lice or Aphididae of Great Britain’. Stylops, vol. J, p. 28. (2) Jacob, F.H., 1948. An account of a ‘Black Aphid’, Aphis ulicis Walker, 1870. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) vol. 17, pp. 60-61. (3) Fidler, J.H., 1951. Aphis vaccinii (Borner) new to the British Isles. A redescription and comparison with Aphis callunae Theobald. Proc. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. (B) vol. 20, p. 37-43. (4) Bormer, C., 1952. Europae centralis Aphides. Mitt thiiring. bot. Ges. Beiheft 3,1. Lieferung, p. 84. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (5) Stroyan, H.L.G., 1958. Aphids in Wales. Nature in Wales, 1958, p. 782. (6) Ossiannilsson, F., 1959. Contributions to the knowledge of Swedish aphids. II. List of species with find records and ecological notes. Kungl. Lantbrukshégsk. Annilr, vol. 25, p. 431. (7) Huculak, S., 1966. Mszyce Pojezierza Mazurskiego, II. Fragmenta faunistica, vol. 13, p. 119. (8) Szelegiewicz, H., 1966. Erganzungen zur Blattlausfauna Polens. Fragmenta faunistica, vol. 12, p. 435. (9) 1968. Aphidodea in Catalogus Faunae Poloniae, vol. 21(4) p. 87. (10) Eastop, V.F. & Hille Ris Lambers, D., 1976. Survey of the World’s Aphids, p. 46 (11) Wood-Baker, C.S., 1976. Biometric data for Aphis callunae Theobald in Britain. Entomologist’s monthly Magazine, vol. 111, pp. 237-238. (12) Miiller, F.P., 1976. Faunistisch-6kologische Beobach- tungen iiber Aphiden im Kiistenbereich des Bezirkes Rostock. Wiss. Z. W-Pieck-Univ. Rostock, vol. 25, p. 284. 6. Since 1961 two further collections of Walker aphid material have come to light and been reported upon: one in Belfast (Stroyan, 1973, J. nat. Hist., vol. 7, pp. 557-559) and one in Bolton (Hancock, E.G., 1978, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. vol. 63, pp. 295-303). The latter collection includes one slide bearing on its upper label the name ‘Betulina’, together with the data ‘Birch Southgate July 13 — 47’. The contained specimens are two winged viviparous females, one fragmentary. The better specimen agrees in a number of important respects with Walker’s 1852 description of Aphis betulina, and also agrees closely with available winged viviparae of Aphis callunae Theobald. If it is accepted that the slide now in the collection of the Bolton Museum, and labelled ‘Betulina’, is the genuine material on which Aphis betulina was based, and if the Law of Priority is applied, the rather widely known Aphis callunae Theobald will be relegated to synonymy and replaced by the hitherto unknown and unused Aphis betulina Walker, 1852. 8. In spite of one apparent morphological point of differ- ence between the description by Walker and the specimens in the slide, and of uncertainty as to whose hand wrote the name ‘Betulina’ on the slide label (Stroyan, 1978, in appendix to Hancock, loc. cit.), the overall balance of agreement between the description, the slide data and the contained aphids is held to justify the acceptance of the Bolton slide as being original material of Aphis betulina Walker. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175 9. Under these circumstances I consider it desirable to invoke Articles 23(a-b) and 79(b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Providing for the suppression under the plenary powers of unused senior synonyms published more than 50 years before the date of such rejection. In support of my application I cite the facts and bibliographic references already given in paragraph 5 above, which show that (1) Aphis betulina Walker, 1852, has never since its first publication been employed as the valid name of a taxon; and that (2) Aphis callunae Theobald, 1915, has been continuously and repeatedly so employed as the valid name of a well- known European aphid species; but is a junior subjective synonym of Aphis betulina Walker, 1852, as inter- preted from a recently discovered Walker slide of the latter. 10. To formalize the Synonymy of the two specific names I have designated and published as lectotype of Aphis betulina Walker the more complete of the two specimens on the slide now held by the Bolton Museum (Stroyan, 1978, in appendix to Hancock, loc. cit.). If. I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name callunae Theobald, 1915, as published in the binomen Aphis callunae, is to be given precedence over the speci- fic name betulina Walker, 1852, as published in the binomen Aphis betulina, whenever the two names are held to be synonyms; (2) to place the specific name callunae Theobald, 1959, as published in the binomen Aphis callunae, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the specific name betulina Walker, 1852, as published in the binomen Aphis betulina, whenever the two names are held to be synonyms: (3) to place the specific name betulina Walker, 1852, as published in the binomen Aphis betulina, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name callunae Theobald, 1915, as published in the binomen Aphis callunae, whenever the two names are held to be synonyms. 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature GALAGO CRASSICAUDATUS E. GEOFFROY, 1812 (PRIMATES: GALAGIDAE): PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE HOLOTYPE AND TO DESIGNATE A NEOTYPE. Z.N.(S)2285 By T. Rowland Olson (St. Thomas’s Hospital Medical School, London) ABSTRACT: In the course of a revisory study of the greater galagos (Olson, 1979), it became evident that a number of problems precluded the subspecific allocation of the type specimen of Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 which is now referred to the genus Otolemur Coquerel, 1859. The inadequacies of the holotype are deemed to constitute ‘exceptional circum- stances’, which justify this application in order to resolve a complex zoological problem and to establish nomenclatural stability within the species group con- cerned. The object of this application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the holotype of Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, specimen number 1808-174 (Type collection number 146), and to designate as the neotype of this taxon specimen number 4.12.3.6, in the British Museum (Natural History), London. HISTORY OF THE CASE The first report on the future type specimen of Galago crassi- caudatus occurs in the almost totally overlooked article by E. Geoffroy, 1811: 164—165, in which he misidentified it as an example of Bosman’s potto (Bosman, 1704: 32). This account con- tains an observation which is relevant to one of the three essential characteristics given by E. Geoffroy, 1812: 166, in the original description of his type and only specimen as Galago crassicaudatus, namely that its pelage coloration is uniformly grey-red (gris-roux) on the exterior. This description reads: ‘Pelage gris-roux: Oreilles deux tiers de la longeur de la téte: queue touffue.’ The account pre- sented by E. Geoffroy, 1820:12, of the holotype repeated this 1812 description without alteration or addition. In 1828: 34, he amended this description to read that the ears were a quarter shorter than the head. These four publications by E. Geoffroy (1811, 1812, 1820 and 1828) contain the only descriptions of G. crassicaudatus and its holotype by the original author. 2. Lesson, 1840: 245-246, cited Geoffroy, 1811: 165 as describing the specimen as being coloured a uniform red (rousse) externally. Not only is this a misquotation, but it is also inconsistent with Lesson’s own description of the specimen. In the same article, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177 Lesson (1840:245) reported its colour as ‘pelage gris-roux en-dessus, gris-blanc en-dessous’. This description agrees with those of E. Geoffroy and other previous authors that the colour of the speci- men is greyish-red. This makes it difficult to understand why Lesson reported E. Geoffrey, 1811, in describing its colour as uniformly red. 3. Another description of the holotype’s colour is given by Temminck, in van der Hoeven, 1844:42. Temminck stated that the base of each hair on the body was of a blackish brown colour and the tip was grey or fawn. These last two colours were described as being widely distributed over all superior parts of the body except where it was shaded with blackish brown. 4.Dahlbom, 1856: 227, 229, gave a brief but important account of the holotype in which he described it as being greyish- yellow (griseotestaceum) in colour. He also noted that the ears were transparent in appearance. 5. Elliot, 1913, also personally examined the holotype as part of his review of the primates and he gave the following account of the specimen (1913:56): ‘Geoffroy’s type is in the Paris Museum, but is so faded that but little of the original colour remains. The tail has lost most of the hair on the apical half, and the example is in such a condition that a description of it would only serve to mislead.’ 6. These observations by Elliot were confirmed in 1977 when the present author examined the holotype in Paris. The holotype consists of a mounted skin in an extremely poor state of preser- vation and most of an incomplete skull. The mounted specimen is very faded and its tail is missing an indeterminable amount from its distal end due to post-mortem breakage. The tips of both ears are also damaged. 7.The poor preservation of the pelage of the holotype, reported as long ago as 1913 by Elliot, is also evident in many of the more ancient type specimens in the Paris collection. The unsatis- factory state of these specimens can be attributed to their having been exhibited for a prolonged period of time in a gallery where they were exposed directly to sunlight. It has not been possible to determine when this deterioration was first noticeable in the holo- type of Galago crassicaudatus. In the last two descriptions of the holotype prior to Elliot, 1913, Temminck, in van der Hoeven, 1844:42, and Dahlbom, 1856:227, made no reference to a fading of the specimen’s coloration. However, from their distinctly differ- 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ent descriptions and the particular colour reported by Dahlbon, it is reasonable to assume that the specimen was already considerably faded and its tail damaged by the early 1850’s. The conclusion is supported by Dahlbom’s reference to the ears as being transparent. The ears of the holotype are in fact devoid of pigment and they do appear transparent. This condition is unknown in living adult indi- viduals of Otolemur and its presence in the type is consistent with the interpretation that the original colour of the holotype has been extremely bleached by sunlight. PROVENANCE OF ‘GALAGO CRASSICAUDATUS’ SENSU STRICTO 8. In his first account, E. Geoffroy, 1811:165, explained that he obtained his supposed ‘potto’ specimen from the collections of the Lisbon Museum but he cited no location of origin for the specimen. In the original and subsequent descriptions of this same specimen as Galago crassicaudatus (1812:166), (1820:36, 1828:34), he left the habitat of this animal blank. 9. The first authoritative identification of another specimen to this taxon, accompanied by a statement of locality, was made by Sundevall in a letter to van der Hoeven, in van der Hoeven, 1844:42 on 20 February 1844. In his letter, Sundevall reported that he had received a specimen of this animal from near Port Natal in Caffraria. 10. Van der Hoeven, 1844: 42, also quoted a communication from Temminck stating that the native land of this animal was un- known but that it was probably an inhabitant of Africa. 11. Peters, 1852: 292, claimed that the specimen described _ by E. Geoffroy in 1812 was very similar to those he collected near Quélimane and Tette and that it almost certainly also originated from Mozambique. 12. The most widely accepted interpretation of this issue was first proposed by Thomas, 1917: 48, in his geographical review of the races of ‘Galago crassicaudatus’. He said: “The type locality of crassicaudatus itself, not known at the time of description, has first to be settled, and on this I should accept the first authoritative identification of specimens and statement of locality, which were made by Peters in 1852. He says that Geoffroy’s type-specimen ““stammt ohne Zweifel ebenfalls aus Mossambique her’’, and identi- fies with it his own specimens of various places, of which Quélimane is the first to be mentioned. I should therefore take that as the type locality.’ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179 In preferring Peters, 1852, Thomas overlooked Sundevall’s reference, in van der Hoeven, 1844, to Port Natal in Caffraria as the location near which his specimen of this taxon was collected. Sundevall’s contribution (contra Thomas, 1917) is the first associa- tion of a locality with a specimen of this taxon other than the holotype. While Sundevall’s account is less extensive than Peters’s, it cannot be considered as less authoritative. In fact, prior to his letter to van der Hoeven, Sundevall had actually examined Geoffroy’s type in Paris as part of a revisory work which included this group whereas there is no evidence that Peters examined the holotype prior to his association of it with his specimens from Mozambique. Thus there seems to be little justification for Thomas’s 1917 selection of Peters, 185 2, as the first authority on this subject. DISCUSSION 13. The analysis of the available quantitative data from the cranium of the holotype clearly establishes its identity within the greater galago dichotomy initially described by Matschie, 1905: 13, and reiterated by most twentieth century reviewers of this group: Lonnberg, 1913: 43; Thomas, 1917: 47; Schwarz, 1931: 44; Hill, 1953: 217. The morphometric analysis of the cranium plus the descriptive indication of the original size of the holotype’s ears by E. Geoffroy, 1812 and 1828, demonstrate that it is not a repre- sentative of the small East African coastal species of Otolemur (= O. garnettii) as claimed by J. Buettner-Janusch and V. Buettner- Janusch, 1963: 1012, without corroborative evidence. The results of this analysis agree rather with those of Matschie, 1905, Lonnberg, data about its pelage coloration and of geographical information about its provenance. 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Accepting E. Geoffroy’s 1811 description of this specimen as uniformly greyish-red does not resolve this ambiguity, because, of the two southern African subspecies of the crassicaudatus group, one is basically grey in colour with a brownish wash to the dorsum in many individuals, while the other is basically reddish-brown with some grey in many individuals. E. Geoffroy’s descriptions of the holotype have been taken by most recent authorities: Sclater, 1900: 19; Matschie, 1905: 241; Lonnberg, 1913: 44; Thomas, 1917: 49; Fitzsimons, 1919: 79; Haagner, 1920: 17; Schwarz, 1931: 48; Shortridge, 1934: 14; Rode, 1937: 25; G. Allen, 1939: 115; Roberts, 1951: 17; Ellerman et al, 1953: 92; Hill, 1953: 222; Lawrence & Loveridge, 1953: 28; Astley-Maberly, 1959: 179; Sweeney, 1959: 15; Meester et al, 1964: 1; Meester & Setzer, 1971: 3; Boer, 1973: 158; Smithers & Tello, 1976: 76 to associate the holotype with the latter subspecific group. However, it is impossible to substantiate this determination due to the present condition of the holotype. Moreover, it is not universally accepted that this is the correct subspecific association for the holotype: a minority of authorities: Beddard, 1901: 271; Frade, 1924: 120; Swynnerton & Hayman, 1951: 297; Kingdon, 1971: 291 have associated the type specimen with the former subspecific group without presenting evidence in support of their decision. 15. The uncertainty of the type specimen’s morphological affinity to one or other of these two subspecific groups is com- pounded by the absence of provenance data for the specimen. The widely accepted designation of Quélimane as the substitute type locality by Thomas in 1917 was based upon the erroneous opinion that Peters, 1852, was the first reviewer of this subject. Further- more, it undermines the availability of the name ‘Galago crassicau- datus’. Quélimane is located within a recognisable zone of hybridi- zation between the two southern African subspecies of Otolemur crassicaudatus which extends from eastern Zimbabwe-Rhodesia through the Zambezi River region of Mozambique to southern Malawi. While E. Geoffroy’s description could in fact be inter- preted as describing an intermediate condition between the two distinct subspecific morphologies to the north and to the south of this zone, this conclusion is both impossible to confirm and un- necessarily disruptive to the nomenclature of this species group, since the name given to such a hybrid cannot be used for either of the parental species under Article 24 c of the Code. 16. The uncertainty about the original coloration of the dorsal pelage of the type-specimen of crassicaudatus is of consider- able systematic importance because this characteristic is the most diagnostic subspecific feature within the species of which this Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181 specimen is the nominal type. The other features reported for this specimen by E. Geoffroy, 1811, 1812, 1820 & 1828, and other authorities or those features which are presently observable on the holotype are inadequate to establish its subspecific identity within its species. This absence of diagnostic subspecific characteristics in the holotype of crassicaudatus is due to the deteriorated condition of the specimen, the ambiguities involved in its previous descriptions and its lack of precise locality data. 17. The unfortunate circumstances surrounding the holotype of crassicaudatus reached a tragic climax in 1978 with the fire which totally destroyed the collections, library and records of the Museu Nacional de Historia Natural in Lisbon. This catastrophe eliminated the only remaining source of information which could have resolved some of the problems surrounding the specimen which was originally part of this collection. 18. All of these factors are deemed to constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’ which justify the designation of a neotype whose morphology is consistent with the most widely held interpretation about the subspecific identity of crassicaudatus and whose proven- ance is also in accord with the locality given by Sundevall, in van der Hoeven, 1844: 42, in the first authoritative identification of a specimen of known origin as a representative of this taxon. This request is considered necessary in order to resolve a complex zoo- logical problem and to establish stability within the species-group typified by crassicaudatus. 19. Therefore, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress all previous desig- nations of type specimens for the nominal species Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812, and to desig- nate a neotype as follows: Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 (Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris vol. 19:166); adult male skin and skull, British Museum (Natural History), London, number 4.1 2.3.6. (2) to place the specific name crassicaudatus Geoffroy, 1812, as published in the binomen Galago crassicaudatus, and as defined by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROPOSED NEOTYPE Galago crassicaudatus E. Geoffroy, 1812 Neotype: British Museum (Natural History), London, specimen number: 4.12.3.6. The specimen consists of a stuffed male museum skin in excellent condition with a separate skull and mandible. The skull of the specimen indicates that the individual was a mature adult, and it is complete except for the crown of the left upper canine and the left mandibular corpus distal to the dental scraper. These two parts of the skull appear to have been destroyed at the time of collection. This specimen has been identified in previous publi- cations under the following names: Galago crassicaudatus; Thomas & Schwann, 1905: 256, Elliot, 1913: 54 Galago crassicaudatus garnettii; Schwarz, 1931: 50 Otolemur crassicaudatus garnettii; Roberts, 1951: 18 Collector: The specimen was collected by C.H.B. Grant on 24th September in 1904 and bears his collector’s number 881. It was presented to the B.M.(N.H.) in 1904 by C.D. Rudd. Locality: The specimen was collected 15 km east of Eshowe in the Ngoye Forest, Natal Province, R.S.A. (28° 52’ S, 31° 37’ E.). This is less than 100 km north of Durban (formerly Port Natal) and it is considered to be consistent with the provenance of the first speci- men from a known locality to be authoritatively identified as Galago crassicaudatus by Sundevall (in van der Hoeven, 1844: 42). Grant noted on the specimen’s label that it was collected in thick forest at an altitude of 700 feet. Description of specimen: The overall colour given to the dorsal surface of the specimen by the cover hairs is a light brown with the midline of the body being slightly more reddish and considerably darker due to the presence of a concentration of long black guard hairs. The cover hairs on the top of the head are dark brown while those of the face and cheeks are a lighter brown. There are no orbital rings or inter- orbital strip on the face, but the hair on the muzzle is shorter than on the rest of the face. The sides of the body and the lateral surfaces of the limbs including the superior surfaces of the feet and hands are a uniform light brown to buff colour. The tail is a pale reddish- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 buff colour with a dark chocolate brown tip on its distal 7 cm. The ventral surface of the body is yellowish-white in marked contrast to the darker coloured dorsal surface. The light colour of the venter also extends on to the medial surface of the limbs and over the throat region to the mouth. The hairs around the genitals are a rich yellow colour and there is an area of naked glandular skin 5.0 cm long and 2.1 cm wide covering the throat. All surfaces of the body and limbs are covered with a dense short coat of dark silvery grey woolly hairs which frequently show through the cover hairs to create a dark grey or blackish patch on the pelage. These are parti- cularly evident on the venter where the cover hairs are much shorter. This dark woolly coat is not found on either the head or the tail. The naked area of the ears, rhinarium and plantar surfaces of the feet and hands are a dark blackish brown colour. The measurements recorded for the specimen by Grant at the time of collection are: Head + Body length 313 mm, Tail length 403 mm, Hindfoot length 88 mm, and Ear height 62 mm. The skull of the specimen is dentally mature but neither of the basicranial sutures is fused. There is a small sagittal crest. The dentition of the upper and lower postcanine series exhibits only slight apical wear on the cusps of the teeth. The M, and M, are an- omalous in lacking protocristids. Maximum cranial length: 7.25 cm, Bizygomatic breadth 4.86 cm, Palatal length: 2.79 cm, Palatal breadth across M? s: 2.38; length of upper postcanine series: 2.30. The possibility of selecting the holotype of ‘Galago zuluensis’ Elliot, 1907 as the neotype of ‘Galago crassicaudatus’ was con- sidered but this option was rejected for the following reasons. The condition of the holotype is not particularly good. Its stuffed skin was distorted during preservation, thus obscuring many important characteristics, and its skull has lost many of its teeth. In addition to its poor condition, the history of the holotype is not fully known. The holotype was originally part of the collections of the former Kristiania Museum in Oslo and it was obtained by the B.M.(N.H.) in 1894 as part of a specimen exchange before becoming a type. The only information available for the specimen is that it was collected by Dahl in Zululand, now Natal Province South Africa. Given the poor condition of the holotype and its limited associated data, there would have been little benefit in selecting it as the proposed neotype of crassicaudatus. The specimen which is proposed as the neotype of this taxon is exemplary and it is accom- panied by considerably more information about its origin. In the present author’s revisory study of Otolemur, ‘Galago zuluensis’ is recognized as a subjective synonym of Otolemur crassicaudatus crassicaudatus. 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REFERENCES ALLEN, G.M. 1939. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard vol. 38: 1-763. ASTLEY-MABERLY, C.T. 1959. Animals in Rhodesia. 211 pp. Howard Timmins, Cape Town. BEDDARD, F.E. 1901. Proc zool. Soc. London vol. 1:271—276. BOER, L.E.R. DE 1973. Genetica vol. 44: 155-193. BOSMAN, W. 1704. Nauwkeurige beschryving van de Guinese Goud-Tard en Slave-Kust. Deel 2. 280 pp. Anthony Schouten, Utrecht. BUETTNER-JANUSCH, J.& BUETTNER-JANUSCH, V. 1963. Nature, London vol. 197: 1018—1019. COQUEREL, C. 1859. Revue Mag. Zool. vol. 2: 457—460. DAHLBOM, A.G. 1856. Zoologiska Studier. Bardet 1. 240 pp. Berlingska Boktryckeriet, Lund. ELLERMAN, J.R., MORRISON-SCOTT, T.C.S. & HAYMAN, R.W. 1953. Southern African Mammals. 363 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. ELLIOT, D.G. 1907. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7), vol. 20: 185-196. 1913. Monogr. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. No. 1 vol. 1,317 pp. FITZSIMONS, F.W. 1919. The Natural History of South Africa. Vol. 1. 177 pp. Longmans, Green & Co. FRADE, F. 1924. Bull. Soc. port. Sci. nat. vol. 9: 127-135. GEOFFROY, E. 1811. Annls. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris. vol. 17: 164—165. —____1812. Annls. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris. vol. 19: 156—170. 1820. Le Galago du Sénégal. in Geoffroy, E. & Cuvier, F., Histoire naturelle des mammiferes. vol. 1: 1—12. 1828. Cours de l’Histoire naturel des mammiferes. inf legon. 42 pp. 6 Juin 1828. Pichon et Didier, Paris. HAAGNER, A. 1920. South African Mammals. 248 pp. H.F. & G. Witherby, London. HILL, W.C.O. 1953. Primates. Vol. 1.798 pp. Univ. Press, Edinburgh. JAMESON, H.L. 1909. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8), vol. 4: 455—474. JENTINK, F.A. 1909. Zool. J. Jena, Syst. Geogr. Biol. vol. 28: 239—262. KINGDON, J. 1971. East African Mammals. Vol. 1. 446 pp. Academic Press, London. LAWRENCE, B. & LOVERIDGE, A. 1953. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 110: 1—80. LESSON, R.P. 1840. Species des mammiféres. Bimanes et quadrumanes. 290 es pp. J.B. Bailliére, Paris. LONNBERG. E. 1913. K. svenska Vetensk Akad. Handl. vol. 48: 1—188. MATSCHIE, P. 1905. Sber. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berl. Jahrg. 1905 (10): 277-279. MEESTER, J., DAVIS, D.H.S. & COETZEE, C.G. 1964. An interim classi- fication of southern African mammals. Zoological Society of Southern Africa and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. King William’s Town. Cyclostyled in Pretoria. MEESTER, J, & SETZER, H.W. 1971. The mammals of Africa: an identifi- cation manual. Part 3(2). Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185 OLSON, T.R. 1979. Studies on aspects of the morphology and systematics of the genus Otolemur Coquerel, 1859 (Primates: Galagidae). Ph.D. Thesis, University of London. 804 pp. University Microfilms ref. no. 79—70, 038. PETERS, W.C.H. 1852. Reise nach Mossambique. Mammals. 202 pp. Georg Reimer, Berlin. ROBERTS, A. 1951. The Mammals of South Africa. 700 pp. Trustees of the Mammals of South Africa Book Fund, Pretoria. RODE, P. 1937. Publs Com. Etud. hist. scient. Afr. occid, fr. (B), No. 2: 1—220. SCHWARZ, E. 1931. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (10), vol. 5: 41-66. SCLATER, W.L. 1900. The Fauna of South Africa. Vol. 1. 324 pp. R.H. Porter, London. SHORTRIDGE, G.C. 1934. The Mammals of South West Africa. Vol. 1. 437 pp. Wm. Heinemann Ltd., London. SMITHERS, R.H.N. & TELLO, J.L.P.L. 1976. Mus. Mem. vol. 8: 1—184. SWEENEY, R.C.H. 1959. A Checklist of the Mammals of Nyasaland. 71 pp. The Nyasaland Society, Blantyre. SWYNNERTON, G.H. & HAYMAN, R.W. 1951. J.E. Afr. nat. Hist. Soc. nat. Mus. vol. 20: 274-392. THOMAS, O. 1917. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) vol. 20: 47—50. THOMAS, O. & SCHWANN, H. 1905. Proc. zool. Soc. London vol. 1 for 1905, Jan. — Apr.: 254-276. VAN DER HOEVEN, J. 1844. Tijdschr. natuurl. gesch. physiol. vol. 11: 1—48. 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature HELIOTHIS OCHSENHEIMER, 1816 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE GENDER AND STEM. Z.N.(S.) 2306 By I.W.B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 SBD, U.K.) The object of this application is to ask the Commission to rule on the gender and the stem of the generic name Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816, a name widely used throughout the world for agricultural pests of major economic importance, and as the type genus of a well known subfamily of the NOCTUIDAE. 2. Heliothis was used first by Hubner, [1806] (Tentamen determinationis digestionis . . . .:[2]), in a work that has been rejected for nomenclatural purposes in 1926, Opinion 97, and in 1954, Opinion 278. The only species included by Hubner was Phalaena dipsacea Linnaeus, 1767, and Heliothis was treated as feminine. 3. Heliothis was next used by Hiibner, 1808 (Erste Zutrage Sammi. exot. Schmett.: 5), in a work that has also been rejected for nomenclatural purposes in 1966, Opinion 789. The only name then included by Hubner was of a new species Heliothis jucunda, at that time a nomen nudum which nevertheless shows that Heliothis was again treated as feminine. 4. Heliothis was next used, and on this occasion established, by Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Schmett. Eur., vol. 4: 91), and again treated as feminine. The type species Phalaena dipsacea Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat., (Edn 12) vol. 1: 856), was subsequently desig- nated by Samouelle, 1819 (Entomologist’s useful Compendium: 252). Treitschke, 1826 (in Ochsenheimer, Schmett. Eur., vol. 5 (3): 215), gave the Greek derivation of Heliothis and continued to treat it as feminine. 5. Meigen, 1832 (Syst. Beschreibung eur. Schmett., vol. 3: 224), emended the generic name to Heliothisa, thus emphasizing the feminine gender. 6. Up to the present time about 35 new taxa with available names have been established in the genus Heliothis and of these 20 of the adjectival species-group names published by 14 different authors were treated as feminine, 5 adjectival names by 3 different authors were treated as masculine, and the remainder as nouns. 7. Ever since the classic checklist by Staudinger, 1901 (in Staudinger & Rebel, Cat. Lepid. palaearct. Faunengeb. pt.1), the generic name Heliothis has been treated as feminine throughout the Old World, and similarly since McDunnough, 1938 (Check List Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 Lepid. Canada and U.S.A.), this name has been treated as feminine by New World authors. 8. Hardwick, 1965 (The Corn Earworm complex, Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 40), established Helicoverpa for the type species Noctua armigera Hiibner, [1808], one of the most important pests of cotton, maize (corn), tobacco, tomatoes and other crops in the Old World. Sixteen other species were also placed in Helicoverpa including Phalaena zea Boddie, 1850, one of the most destructive insect pests in the U.S.A., attacking the same crops as armigera; Heliothis punctigera Wallengren, 1860, a major pest in Australia; and other pest species such as Heliothis assulta Guenee, 1852, and Noctua virescens Fabricius, 1777. 9. Boursin, 1965 (Bull. mens. Soc. linn. Lyon, vol. 34: 186), synonymized Helicoverpa with Chloridea Duncan [& Westwood] , 1841, nowadays treated as a junior subjective synonym of Heliothis. 10. Hardwick, 1970 (A generic revision of the North American Heliothidinae, Mem. ent. Soc. Can. No. 73: 18), reiterated his opinion that Helicoverpa and Heliothis were generically distinct and continued to treat both as feminine. 11. Steyskal, 1971 (On the grammar of the name Heliothis Ochsenheimer, J. Lepid. Soc., vol. 25: 265), pointed out that under the Code, Article 30(a)i, the gender of Heliothis was masculine and would require a ruling by the Commission to fix it as feminine. In an Editor’s Note at the end of Mr. Steyskal’s paper it was suggested that the case should be submitted to the Commission for a ruling. I have not done this up to now as I did not anticipate that anyone would wish to upset the traditional feminine treatment of this generic name. 12. Todd, 1978 (A Checklist of Species of Heliothis Ochsen- heimer, Proc. ent. Soc. Wash., vol. 80: 2) stated that he was treating Helicoverpa as a synonym of Heliothis and that ‘The generic name, Heliothis, is masculine in gender, but has usually been treated as feminine.’ He then gave a checklist of valid names and synonyms in which the terminations of 33 valid names were changed to mas- culine. Dr Todd is fortunate in that he could treat zea Boddie, commonly known as the New World Corn Earworm or Cotton Bollworm, as a noun and so did not have to change the name of this major pest in North America. Of the other species in the U.S.A. placed in Heliothis, if this name is treated as masculine then the termination of three should be changed, but if treated as feminine then all could remain the same. The other 30 taxa the ter- minations of whose names Dr Todd has changed occur outside the U.S.A. and unfortunately include all the major pests in this group such as armigera Hubner, punctigera Wallengren, assulta Guenée, 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and other well known species such as viriplaca Hufnagel, maritima Graslin, peltigera [Denis & Schiffermiller] , and nubigera Herrich- Schaffer. No taxonomist in the Old World would with impunity dare to suggest any such unnecessary change in spelling of these names which have had total stability and universality of use for so long. 13.In the Review of Applied Entomology (Agricultural Series) vol. 64 containing abstracts of works published during 1976, H. armigera was used in 74 different works, during 1977 it was used in 58 works, and during 1978 in 64 works. There are nomenclatural problems enough for field workers to contend with as the specific names oscillate between Heliothis and Helicoverpa, but now for some nomenclaturists to say that these generic names have different genders and therefore that the terminations of hitherto stable specific names must be changed, is evidence that in some respects zoological nomenclature is out of touch with the real world of practical agriculture and computer-based information retrieval. 14. Under the Code, Article 30(a)i, the Commission can rule on the gender of a genus-group name without the use of the plenary powers. I therefore ask for Heliothis to be designated as feminine in conformity with tradition and usage. 15. Boisduval, 1828 (Europaeorum Lepidopterorum Index Methodicus: 94), first used the name HELIOTHIDI for a tribe containing Heliothis. Since then and up to the present day it has been used as a family-group name based either on HELIOTH- or HELIOTHID-. 16. Steyskal, 1971: 264, pointed out that the name Heliothis is an aorist passive participle of the Greek verb héliod and strict application of the Code, Article 29a, would require the use of the stem HELIOTHENT- in forming family-group names. This has never been followed. 17. Steyskal continued ‘However, if Article 11.b of the Rules, which states that zoological names “must be either Latin or Latinized,”’ be interpreted strictly, we may consider that the complex Greek participial system was not a part of Latin, except in the case of a few words used as nouns and to be found in Latin dictionaries. We may then consider Heliothis as declinable in the way the great majority of Latin nouns in -is are declined, ... ‘If this is done, the stem used in forming family-group names will be Helioth- and the subfamily name consequently Heliothinae. At any rate, there can be no basis for the insertion of -id-.’ 18. The Code, Article 29d, states that ‘A family-group name proposed before 1961 based upon an incorrectly formed stem is not to be amended for that reason if it is in general use’. The stem Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189 HELIOTH- is certainly in general, though not in universal, use. In any case it is customary in the Lepidoptera to avoid the cluinsy -ididae termination, for example Pyralis, family PYRALIDAE (Opinion 450); Episema, family EPISEMIDAE (Opinion 494); and Pieris, family PIERIDAE (Opinion 500). An application to the Commission by Steyskal, 1972 (Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 29: 27), to have the names PYRALIDAE and EPISEMIDAE changed to PYRALIDIDAE and EPISEMATIDAE was refused in Opinion 1094. 19. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is therefore requested: (1) to rule that the stem of the generic name Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816, is HELIOTH-; (2) to rule that the gender of the generic name Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816, is feminine; (3) to place on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology (a) HELIOTHINAE (ex Heliothidi) Boisduval, 1828, type genus Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816; (4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Samouelle, 1819, Phalaena dipsacea Linnaeus, 1767; (5) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) dipsacea Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Phalaena dipsacea (specific name of the type species of Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816). 20. This application is strongly supported by those of my colleagues who are involved with the usage of Heliothis including J.D. Bradley, D.S. Fletcher, K.M. Harris and J.D. Holloway. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NOTE ON THE ABOVE APPLICATION Z.N.(S.) 2306 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature I should like to suggest a more plausible etymology for the generic name Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 than that put forward by Mr Steyskal. The Greek verb “helioomai” seems to be known only in the passive voice and to mean “to be exposed to the sun”. On the other hand, we are dealing with the name of a Noctuid moth, which would be most unlikely to be exposed to the sun. The Ionian Greeks used the noun “Heliotis” as a feminine form of “thelios” (the sun) for the moon, and it seems to me more likely that either Ochsenheimer, his copyist, or his printer made a small error in latinising a highly appropriate Greek word (not involving any change of pronunciation in German) than that any of them discovered and deliberately used an obscure and highly inappro- priate word. Heliotis as a generic name (also in Lepidoptera) was used by Lefebvre, 1827, and is not a junior homonym of Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816. In the Index Animalium, Sherborn lists not fewer than 10 specific epithets in the feminine proposed before 1850 for species of Heliothis. This suggestion entails no obvious change in the proposals put forward by Dr Nye, but it does question the correctness of the view that the gender of the generic name Heliothis is masculine under the Code. The irrelevant fact may be added that at Carrae in ancient Italy the sun was worshipped as Lunus, the masculine of Luna. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191 ATHYREUS MACLEAY, 1819, AND GLYPTUS BRULLE, 1835 (INSECTA: COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)1583 By H.F. Howden (Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6) The main purpose of the present application is to protect the well-known geotrupine generic name Athyreus Macleay, 1819, from the threat posed by its unused senior synonym Glyptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818. At the same time, but as a corollary, it is. necessary to consider the generic name Glyptus Brullé, 1835. The facts are as follows: 2. Glyptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818, Wiedemann’s Zool. Mag. vol. 1 (2), p. 85, was described without any included species. The description and locality (Bahia, Brazil), however, leave no room for doubt: the genus is that now known as Afthyreus, which (as currently defined) contains some 31 species. As far as | know, no species has ever been placed in Glyptus Hoffmannsegg. The name has been cited only in the synonymy of Athyreus (Gemminger & Harold, 1869, Catal. Coleopt., vol. 4, p. 1076; Boucomont, 1902, Gen. Ins., fasc. 7, p. 7) and never used as a valid name. 3. Athyreus Macleay, 1819, Horae entomol., vol. 1(1), p. 123, was established for three species, none of which was then fixed as type species. The first species, A. bifurcatus Macleay, 1819, op. cit., p. 124, was designated as type species by Howden & Martinez, 1963, Canadian Entomol., vol. 95, p. 350. The genus, which was there made type genus of the tribe ATHYREINI, had previously been used for a number of species. Between the years 1819, when M’Leay proposed the name Athyreus, and 1963 when Howden and Martinez divided Athyreus into four genera and proposed the tribe ATHYREINI, at least 70 species names had been included under Athyreus by 14 or more authors (see Junk, Coleopt. Cat., pars 46 by Boucomont, 1912, and Cat. Coleop. of Central and S. America by Blackwelder, 1944). The restriction of the genus (by Howden and Martinez, 1978, Contrib. amer. entomol. Inst., vol. 15(4), 70 pp.) currently recognizes 31 species, with the remaining species being placed in other genera. In 1963 when Athyreus was divided, the use of Glyptus Hoffmannsegg was rejected by Howden and Martinez as a nomen oblitum on the basis of Article 23b. However, while this article would allow the continued use of Athyreus MacLeay, it leaves the use of Glyptus Brullé in question. 4. Glyptus Brullé, 1835, Hist. nat. Inst., vol. 5, Coleoptera Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 3, September 1980 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature II, p. 83, was established for a single carabid species, G. sculptilis Brullé, 1835, op. cit., p. 84, which is thus the type species by monotypy. The genus now contains only two African species (Basilewsky, 1935, Expl. Parc nat. l’Upemba, Carabidae, pp. 180- 181), but the fact that it is a junior homonym of Glyptus Hoffmannsegg has never been noticed and the name has been undisturbed in usage for over 140 years. There seems no reason why the senior homonym, whose suppression as a senior synonym of Athyreus is the main object of this application, should retain its rights under the Law of Homonymy and | therefore ask for its suppression for that purpose also. The junior homonym, Glyptus Brullé, 1835, is moreover the type genus of the tribe GLYPTINI Basilewsky, 1953. 5. Sherborn, 1932, Index Anim., Index to Generic Names, p. 518, lists mobilicornis and sculptilis under Glyptus Hoffmannsegg. Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius was mentioned by Hoffmannsegg in his discussion of Glyptus, but was not referred to the genus. G. sculptilis Brullé was, as we have seen, described in the different, homonymous nominal genus Glyptus Brullé, in a different family. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Glyptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) toplace on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Athyreus Macleay, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Howden & Martinez, 1963, Athyreus bifurcatus Macleay, 1819; (b) Glyptus Brullé, 1835 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Glyptus sculptilis Brullé, 1835, as conserved by the use of the plenary powers in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) bifurcatus Macleay, 1819, as published in the bino- men Athyreus bifurcatus (specific name of type species of Athyreus Macleay, 1819); (b) sculptilis Brullé, 1835, as published in the binomen Glyptus sculptilis (specific name of type species of Glyptus Brullé, 1835). (4) to place the generic name Glyptus Hoffmannsegg, 1818, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. gas" ; . 1 4vae Vt ‘ / 4 iy EP ie 2 ' vf bi f ? 4% R Hb SF yee . ‘ 4 ¥ ‘ vi \ = * aioe. An : ¥é : 4 Z . * re ed < +a 4 - ae. < a ah, siz Sen 5 % she ne-t iP PP, 4 iT, 7S rw r iG le . nae *. ‘ 4 c . re * ‘ ly . | . + Sta. = ; thee ay Tt; “yy ° 5 Py : - ry a rm oe ’ eit» oe A . 2 a 4 ‘Zz oe ety KPe ita ahs Aw . : > ale M y : “ oe 7 . é Sy sl nae : 4 J wy J ° ti) 6? - rw ’ aa] ‘ J —_ ,' - x ‘wh , hae J ; piu . a t 4 im T% " “‘ ’ yar ACP 7 Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the main regular source of income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales of this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of dona- tions and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. © 1980 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD. < ie Volume 37, Part 4 P 9 ISSN 0007 - 5167 pp. 193 — 266 T-P., I-VI f ics ~\ 4th December 1980 \ P6i ao #9 | Lr PIIRCHIA 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: (a) Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. .... . 193 (b) Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain San RPM Se ek a us s be eee 193 Dee OR Mew applcatiouS ... .. 1. <6 s6e.e0se0eeenecns 193 194 (Contents continued on page xv) LONDON International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD Price £7.50 (All rights reserved) THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON xiii ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr.C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.). Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden). Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). Assistant Secretary: Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Prof. T. HABE (National Science Museum, 3-23-1 Hyakunin-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) (Councillor) Mollusca Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972) Neotropical Hymenoptera Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia 45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September, 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund, Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972) Echinoidea; Asteroidea Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Prof. Harold E. VOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972) Mollusca Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Crustacea Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 bis rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231, Paris, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada) (17 March 1976) Nematoda Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda xiv Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (College Fellow in Life Sciences, School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, A.C.T. 2616, Australia) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia: Recent and Fossil Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September 1976) (President) Diptera Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia) (29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitatsgebiet Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsd, Norway) (27 December 1978) Parasitology Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Octocorallia; Systematics Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (23 August 1979) Protozoa; Systematics Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Department of Zoology, University of Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Members of the Trust Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director) Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Mon. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. N.E. Hickin Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Dr. G.F. deWitte Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer) B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) CONTENTS (continued from front cover) Comment Proposals concerning the names of four species of CARABIDAE (Insecta, Coleoptera) established by Linnaeus (H. Silfverberg) Commission Report The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Result of vote on proposals for substantive amendments (second instalment) Re a ee Opinions Opinion 1160. Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758 and related species (Insecta, Diptera): stabilisation by the use of the plenary OVO ES ih sy Mela face bass 5 ab a Sapeiledbtn pan eas, Sykes: Ce nee Opinion 1161. Chaitophorus C.L. Koch, 1854 (Insecta, Hemiptera): designation of a type species by use of the plenary powers . . New and revived cases Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed conser- vation (J.H. Lochhead)* > 250 POOre SONSelva hon, At Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 and Jsis Ochracea Linnaeus, 1/758 (Coelenterata, Anthozoa): proposed conser- vation (K.M. Muzik & F.M. Bayer).................. Geoemyda Gray, 1834, and Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation (H.M. Smith, CET Eat See TS. Sst), te. ies Rw hecs cored + SPO * Decne Testudo scripta Schoepff, 1792: Emys cataspila Giinther, 1885: proposed conservation (Reptilia, Testudines) (J.M. Legler, H:MsSmithand ko Smilin) so. ct oe ee ook oe Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes, POMACENTRIDAE): proposal to place on Official List of Generic names in Zoology, and that generic names ending in -chromis be ruled to be masculine (R.M. Bailey, C.R. Robins é& PH. Greenwengeat.. cones. 25eres. again th. Tichogonia Rossmaessler, 1835 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): closure of case (The. Recrtag) Biend. Bodice .& . BP. .bhusiebiees fe XV Page 195 196 216 221 223 228 233 240 247 256 = we) Ry cme deg SE WD.L: RIDE (Cotidge Palo tn Lie Stiences, Sohodl of Appia Conderre Cobere of Advanced Education; PO. Bax 1, Belconnen, A Cm 2416. Australia) (29 September. 1976) (Councilor Maramatie: Recewr and Foud . sas Or Cae © ») ss + =a eri g ti , i » Mr ‘sts5 a “ dmat ienans ga! cw.s eiiicing oo 2 Pees é . Fait’ ¥ 4, , a etn tad eX il teasirt at) mt P of r BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 37, part 4 (pp. 193-266), T.P., I-VI 4 December, 1980 NOTICES (a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal circum- stances the Commission may start 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 (that marked with an asterisk involves the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b): *(1) Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)1984. J.H. Lochhead. (2) Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 and Isis ochracea Linnaeus, 1758 (Coelenterata, Anthozoa), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2150. K.M. Muzik & F.M. Bayer. (3) Geoemyda Gray, 1834, and Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 (Reptilia, Testudines), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2287. H.M. Smith, C.H. Ernst & R.B. Smith. (4) Testudo scripta Schoepff, 1792: Emys cataspila Gunther, 1885. (Reptilia, Testudines), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2315. J.M. Legler, H.M. & R.B. Smith. (5) Chromis Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes, POMACENTRIDAE), proposal to place on Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and that generic names ending in -chromis be ruled to be masculine. Z.N.(S.) 2329. R.M. Bailey, C. Richard Robins & P. Humphry Greenwood. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new appli- cations have been received since the publication of vol. 37(3) on 25 September 1980. That marked with an asterisk involves the appli- cation of Articles 23a-b and 79b. *(1) Oceciacus vicarius Horvath, 1912 (Insecta, Hemip- tera, CIMICIDAE), proposed conservation under plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2358. R.C. Froeschner, E.V. Coan and R.E. Rychman. 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) Typus Sellards, 1909 (Insecta, Protodonata), pro- posed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2359. F.M. Carpenter & P.E.S. Whalley. (3) Coeloides scolytica [sic] Wesmaél, 1838 (Insecta, Hymenoptera), proposed designation as type species of Coeloides Wesmaél, 1838. Z.N.(S.) 2360. C. van Achterberg. (4) Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Anura), proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers (see also Opinion 713). Z.N.(S.) 2361. A. Dubois. (5) PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1940 (Amphibia, Anura), proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2362. A. Dubois. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ELECTION OF VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION Professor Per Brinck was re-elected Vice-President as from September 1980 and under Bylaw 12b will serve for 6 years. INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE We are pleased to report that it has been decided the Presi- dent of the Commission should be ex officio a member of the Trust. Dr. C.W. Sabrosky has accordingly been invited and has accepted membership. In welcoming Dr. C.A. Wright as an observer of the Trust, on behalf of the Royal Society and the International Union of Biologi- cal Sciences, it was reported in the Bulletin (vol. 37, p. 132) that Dr. Wright was a Fellow of the Royal Society. This lapsus is much regretted. : Again, we are sorry that when we published the resignation of Mr C.W. Wright from the Trust (vol. 37, p. 131) it was stated that he had taken up a research fellowship at Churchill College, ‘Oxford’. This should have been Wolfson College, Oxford. INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF THE BULLETIN The Trust regrets that, owing to increases in the printing costs, it will be necessary to increase the price of the Bulletin. Volume No. 38 (in four parts) will now cost £40. The correspon- ding rate in dollars will be $108. Reprints for authors will also cost more: the first 25 copies will still be given free but any additional copies will be increased to 12p per page. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195 FINANCIAL SUPPORT The Trust has great pleasure in announcing that Professor D. Curry, F.G.S., on behalf of his family Trust, has most kindly donated £5,000 to help with the cost of producing the third edition of the Code. We are extremely grateful for this generosity. R.V. MELVILLE, Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 14 October 1980. COMMENT ON PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE NAMES OF FOUR SPECIES OF CARABIDAE (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) ESTABLISHED BY LINNAEUS Z.N.(S.)1237 (see vol. 34, pp. 243—246; vol. 36, pp. 197—198) by Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum, SF—00100 Helsinki, Finland) I wish to support Professor Lindroth’s application for the stabilisation of Pterostichus versicolor (Sturm), P. melanarius (Illiger) and Bembidion bruxellense Wesm4el in their accustomed usages. I find that Professor Mroczkowski’s counter-proposal would lead to great confusion if it were accepted by the Commission. When the problem with the Linnean types was originally discovered, that proposal would probably have been the best way out, but since then much has been done, and the revised nomenclature has won wide acceptance. I think the names used by Lindroth are now the better known ones. They have been used in large-area revisions and handbooks, covering e.g. North America (Lindroth, 1961—1969, Opusc. Entomol., Suppl. 20, 24, 29, 33—35, pp. 1—1192); Central Europe (Freude, 1976, Die Kafer Mitteleuropas vol. 2, pp. 1—302) and the USSR (Kryzhanovskii, 1965, Opred. Faune SSSR, vol. 89, pp. 29-77). They have also been used in regional checklists and national faunas for e.g. Denmark (Hansen, 1968, Denmarks Fauna, vol. 76, pp. 1—451); Britain (Pope, 1977, Handb. Ident. Brit. Ins. vol. 11 (3), pp. 1—105) and Northern Europe (Silfverberg, 1979, Enumer. Coleopt. Fennoscand. Dan., 79 pp.) and further in various faunistic and ecological studies in different countries, such as Andersen, 1970 (Norsk. entomol. Tidsskr., vol. 17, pp. 17—65); Borg, 1973 (Entomol. Tidskr. vol. 94, pp. 56—58); Strand, 1970 Norsk. entomol. Tidsskr., vol. 17, pp. 125—145); Zajanckauskas & Pileckis, 1968 (The reservation of Zuvintas, Vilnius, pp. 264—282) and others. Thus Mroczkowski’s opinion that the names he prefers are in current use by all coleopterists is no longer correct, and I think that the Commission should accept Lindroth’s application. 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE: RESULT OF VOTE ON PROPOSALS FOR SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS (SECOND INSTALMENT) Z.N.(G.) 182 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36 (2), pp. 66-70 a report was published on the first instalment of the Commission’s vote on the Editorial Committee’s proposals for substantive amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. That instalment of the vote concerned some of the proposals that had been published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 167-175; others of those proposals were then reserved for further consideration by the Editorial Committee. 2. All the proposals that had reached the Committee were discussed by the Commission at its special meeting at Stensoffa, Sweden in August 1979, when the Ecological Field Station of the University of Lund was put at our disposal by the kind offices of Professor Per Brinck. A report from that meeting was presented through the general meeting of the Commission at Helsinki to the Section on Zoological Nomenclature of the Division of Zoology of IUBS. As already reported elsewhere (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, p. 224) the Section authorised the Commission to vote on the out- standing proposals in due course and to incorporate the results of the vote into the Code. 3. Two further voting papers were accordingly sent out in February 1980. The first of these, V.P.(80)1, concerned the matters reserved for further consideration from the first instalment of the vote. The second, V.P.(80)2, concerned proposals that had been published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35 (2), pp. 77-87, October 1978. The matters submitted for a vote in these voting papers are set out below. Each voting paper was accompanied by an appendix in which comments received by the Editorial Committee on the proposals were summarised. These appendices are also reproduced here. Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 4, December 1980 Vote No. 1 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Article in Code Art. 8 Publication Art. 9 Publication V.P.(80)1 Commission Report to Section on Zoological Nomenclature, Helsinki, 1979, Section B. 6. That printing by ink on paper be no longer obligatory among the conditions that constitute publication. The pro- vision that confines publication for the purposes of the Code to works printed only in ink on paper (Article 8(1)) would be removed because by modern technology other methods of printing are now common and, moreover, some of them may only be distinguished with difficulty from works produced by customary techniques. The question is part of the broader issue of what should constitute publication for the purposes of the Code and of the criteria of availability. 7. That the following be listed as methods that do not, if employed, constitute publication: (a) handwritten material at any time, and if reproduced as such by a mechanical process after 1930 (b) photographs as such except micro- card and microfiche (c) computer print-outs as such (d) photocopies as such (e.g. xero- graphy and other indirect electro- static reproductions) unless such a method is used to reproduce a work that satisfies Article 8 (e) acoustic tapes and other acoustic recordings as such. The provisions relating to publication present particular difficulty, mainly be- cause the existing provisions do not reflect recent advances in printing tech- nology that greatly facilitate the pro- duction of numerous identical copies of works that may meet the criteria of publication established in Article 8 of 197 V.P.(79)1 Number 3 198 Vote No. Ta 7b Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Article in Code Art. 30a Greek and non-classical epithets Art. 32d(i) Diacritic marks especially umlauts Art. 33d Permissible variants of -i and -ii Commission report to Section on Zoological Nomenclature, Helsinki, 1979, Section B. the Code. In an attempt to exercise some control over the quality of works, these methods would be added to those currently listed in Article 9. 13. That adjectival epithets that are, or end in, Greek or words that are not Latin be treated as indeclinable. The requirement in Article 30 of the Code that an adjectival epithet must agree in gender with the generic name with which it is combined causes difficulty with epithets that are not of Latin origin. Epithets that are or end in Greek words, or words that are not Latin, or that are arbitrary combinations of letters, would be treated as indeclinable. 18. That in the case of scientific names spelled with an umlaut when originally proposed, if there is any doubt that the name is based on a German word, that it be so treated. It is also proposed that any names proposed with umlauts after the publication of the 3rd Edition be treated by deleting the umlaut irrespec- tive of origin. The Code Article 32 c (i) provides that all diacritic marks on letters in scientific names originally published with such marks are to be deleted, with the exception of scientific names based on German words origin- ally spelled with an umlaut, where d, 0 and ii are replaced by ae, oe, and ue respectively. Article 27 requires names to be spelled without diacritic marks. It is intended that the proposed amend- ment to Article 32 will encourage zoologists forming new names to transliterate according to some pre- ferred system before publishing them. 20. That in an epithet formed from the genitive of a personal name the subse- quent use of the termination -i in place of the termination -ii used in the original spelling (and vice versa) con- stitutes an incorrect subsequent spelling V.P.(79)1 Number ie 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Vote No. Article in Code 10 Art. 72b “type slide” proposal for protozoa. (The associated proposal to allow th under certain conditions, to be made Commission report to Section on Zoological Nomenclature, Helsinki, 1979, Section B. even if clearly deliberate. It is well known that there is divided opinion as to whether such names should be treated as permissible alternatives, or even whether the Code should dictate that only the termination -i should be used whatever the stem. Currently the Code Article 32 requires the original spelling to be used. The Committee does not recommend that this be changed. However, some names that are Latin names or that have been put into Latin form and that correctly terminate in -ii have been emended by dropping one i. Except for purposes of Homonymy (Art. 58(10)) such names may be avail- able where the emendation is deliberate. In order to avoid the seeking out and recording of such variants in synonymies and nomenclators they would be treated as though they were incorrect subse- quent spellings and without nomen- clatural status. 26. To provide that in extant species of protozoa, when a taxon cannot be differentiated by a single individual, a number of preserved individuals forming, or presumed to form, a clone and pre- sented in a single preparation may be designated as a holotype or neotype, or selected as a lectotype. Such specimens would have the status of such a type (not syntypes). In consequence of full discussion with protozoologists (the International Congresses of Protozoo- logy and Parasitology), provision would be made in Article 73 for a group of individuals to be treated collectively as a name bearer but, unlike syntypes, not further divisible by lectotype selection from among them. 199 V.P.(79)1 Number 20 € type of certain species of protozoa, up of representatives of successive stages of the life cycle was not published until May 1979 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 200-208) and will be presented for a vote in a later instalment.) 200 Vote No. 11 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Article in Code Art. 73 a-c Art. 74b “holotype” deemed to be lectotype designation Change in presentation in Code. Commission report to Section on Zoological Nomenclature, Helsinki, 1979, Section B. 28. That when a species-group taxon is found to be based upon syntypes and was previously wrongly thought to be based upon a single specimen, or when a single specimen is wrongly thought to have been a holotype, that specimen if previously cited in a published work as a holotype shall be deemed to be a lectotype. The Code Article 73a provides that if a nominal species-group taxon is based on one specimen only, that specimen is the holotype, but if more than one specimen provides the basis, those specimens are of equal value in nomenclature (Art. 73 c). The Code makes no provision to protect the status of a name, previously stable because it was thought to be based upon a holotype, that becomes’ unstable through the discovery that it is based upon syntypes and vulnerable to subsequent selection of a different specimen as lectotype. Stability would be preserved in such cases by giving the specimen previously thought to be a holotype, the status of a lectotype, but protection against selection through mere listing would be provided through making the provisions of Article 73 a (iii) apply. 30. That the term ‘epithet’ be adopted for the second word of a binomen and the second and third words of a trino- men. The Special Session has considered the effect upon the Code of adopting the term ‘epithet’ for the second term of a binomen and the second and third terms of a trinomen. The expressions ‘specific name’ (as used in the Code), ‘name of a species’, ‘name of a species-group taxon’, and ‘name of a nominal species-group taxon’ do not mean the same thing. The Code’s present usage dates back to the old Régles. The Editorial Committee has V.P.(79)1 Number 19 Vote No. 1 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 Article in Code Art. 3 (Araneus Clerck) Art. 10e (Acceptance of names of both primary and secondary sub- divisions of genera) Commission Report to Section on Zoological Nomenclature, Helsinki, 1979, Section B. adopted the term epithet in its published (6th) Draft. The effect upon comprehensibility produced by the Proposal can be judged by inspection and comparison. V.P.(80)2 5. To provide that the generic name Araneus Clerck and epithets published in combination with it by Clerck in 1757 and made available for use in zoo- logical nomenclature by the International Congress in 1948 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 4: 315-319) would have priority as though they were published subse- quent to the starting point of zoological nomen- clature and in 1758 before the 10th Edition of the Systema Naturae. The Paris Congress decided to incorporate a provision in the Code to this effect, but the London Congress decided merely to make an entry referring to the work in the Official List of Works approved for use in Zoological Nomen- clature (Direction 104, 1959, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 17: 89-91). The relative priority of names in Aranei svecici and Systema Naturae (10th Edn), and the year from which all names date, would be made explicit in Article 3 of the Code ‘Starting Point’. 8. That a provision be added to the criteria of avail- ability of genus-group names to provide that, not- withstanding the existing provision that establishes subgeneric rank for names Proposed for certain primary subdivisions of genera, a uni-nominal name Proposed for a group of species is not made unavail- able solely on the grounds that it was proposed for a secondary (or further) subdivision of a genus or sub- genus. The present Article was adopted by the London (1958) Congress to meet a particular Situation that did appear upsetting to stability. It is implicit in Article 11 f (ii) that names for secondary (and further) divisions of genera are not available. Considering, however, that such nMames are widespread, and that as they have been generally accepted, their suppression in toto would be even more disturbing, the restriction to primary divisions, even if only implicit, would be deleted. If a uni- nominal name, duly latinized and capitalized (and not merely a specific epithet), is proposed as a name for a group of species, there is no operational 202 Vote No. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Article in Code Art. 31 (Restoration of Art. 31) Art. 32d(iii) Correction of family-group names Art. 33b (Definition of “demonstrably intentional’’.) Commission Report to Section on Zoological Nomenclature, Helsinki, 1979, Section B. difference between it and a name proposed with the label “gen. nov.” and hence no reason to treat it as anything other than a genus-group name even if it was labelled as the name of a “Section” or “Division”’. 15. That when an epithet formed from a personal name is a noun in the genitive case it is to be formed according to the rules of Latin grammar if the personal name is treated as a Latin word by the author. When it is not, the genitive is to be formed by adding to the stem of the name -i if it is that of a man, -orum if of men, or of man (men) and woman (women) together, -ae if of a woman, and -arum if of women. The old Régles, Art. 14c, provided, for epithets that are substantives in the genitive, that ‘the genitive is formed in accordance with the rules of Latin declension in case the name was employed and declined in Latin’, but ‘if the name is a modern patronymic, the genitive is always formed by adding, to the exact and complete name, an -i if the person isa man... etc. The 1961 Code, Art. 31, appears to say the same thing, but it omits mention of the genitive: ‘A species-group name, if a noun formed from a modern personal name, must end in -i if the personal name is that of aman....’ etc. At the International Congress of Zoology in Washington in 1963, it was held that this Article required too many changes in the spelling of long-accepted names, and the Article was changed to the Recommendation 31A (‘should usually end in... ’) of the present Code. For the sake of promoting consistency in the formation of names the Article would be restored for epithets that are nouns in the genitive case formed from personal names. This proposal was not presented to the Section on Zoological Nomenclature because the corresponding point in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 80 was taken by the Special Session to be merely a corollary of Point 9 in V.P.(79)1 (deletion of Article 29d). 16. That a change in the original spelling of a name shall only be interpreted as ‘demonstrably intentional’ (and hence be an emendation) when, in the work itself, there is an explicit statement of intention, or when both the original and the changed spelling are cited and the latter is adopted in place of the former, or when two or more names Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203 Vote No. Article in Code 6 Art. 40 (Status of family-group names based on emended generic names) 7 Art. 59c (Junior secondary homonyms) Commission Report to Section on Zoological Nomenclature, Helsinki, 1979, Section B. in the same work are treated in a similar way. Infor- mation derived from an author’s or publisher’s corrigenda would be admissible. In order to deter- mine whether a change in the subsequent spelling of a name is an emendation (and hence possibly, technically, an available name in its own right) the Code Article 33 a (ii) requires zoologists to determine whether a change is demonstrably intentional. When the change is only implicitly intentional a rigorous test would be made manda- tory. 17. That a family-group name based on an unjustified emendation of a generic name is an incorrect original spelling and must be corrected. Under Article 40 it is implicit that, when a family name is found after 1960 to be based upon an invalidly emended generic name, the spelling of the family name continues to follow the secondary form of the generic name, while the name of the type genus reverts to its original form. In such cases the spelling of the name of the family group would automatically change in conformity with that of the type genus. 23. To provide that a junior secondary homonym replaced before 1961 is permanently invalid unless the Commission rules otherwise. The Code Article 59 b (i) stipulates that if the use of a replacement name for a junior homonym replaced before 1961 is contrary to existing usage, existing usage is to be maintained and the matter referred to the Commission. Discretion would be given to an author as to whether to refer such a matter to the Commission. If the author discovering the situation, or another author, considers that the matter should be referred to the Commission, and does so, existing usage would be maintained under Article 80 until the decision of the Commission is published. In the case of junior secondary homonyms that have not been replaced (even if the homonymy had not been overlooked), but are no longer considered to be in the same genus with the senior homonym, replace- ment would not take place except by a zoologist who believes that the two species-group taxa are congeneric (Art. 59c). V.P.(80)1 — APPENDIX Note 1. The recommendations of the Editorial Committee are referred to by 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the letters “EC” and those of the Special Session by “‘Stensoffa’’. They were confirmed by the General Meeting of the Commission and by the Section on Nomenclature at Helsinki (see covering letter to V.P.(80)1). Mroczkowski was present at Stensoffa but not at Helsinki; Dupuis was present at Helsinki but not at Stensoffa. Thirteen members were present at both places. At Stensoffa (where the discussions were some of the most lively and constructive that any of us have known), only 12 votes were counted on some points, either because the Chairman did not vote, or because Professor Brinck had been called out of the meeting. Note 2. In the comments on each proposal, various ‘groups’ are mentioned. These were meetings of zoologists at which the published proposals were discussed. At the North American meetings, votes were counted. The groups were: London (British Museum (Natural History), zoologists, entomologists including Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, and palaeontologists); Washington (National Museum of Natural History, U.S. Department of Agri- culture and Department of the Interior, zoologists, palaeontologists and ento- mologists); Ottawa (Agriculture Canada, entomologists); Houston (Ento- mological Society of America annual meeting, in an informal group); Kansas (University of Kansas, zoologists and entomologists); and Copenhagen (14 zoo- logists). 6th Draft Vote Article Number Number Subject 1 8 Printing in ink on paper no longer to be obligatory. EC: Recommended Stensoffa: Recommended nem. con.* Comments: Few, and none published. Most accepted the proposal in recognition of modern technology. See also votes 3 (microcard) and 5 (xerography) below. 2-6 9 Methods that do not constitute publication. EC: Recommended Stensoffa: Votes 2,4 and 6 recommended nem. con. Vote 3: Both EC and Stensoffa agreed that photo- graphs as such should not constitute publication, but that microcard and microfiche should be accepted. Stensoffa recommended that information sufficient to make new names and acts available should be printed in a full-sized publication. (At Stensoffa, 3 voted against their acceptance.) * ‘Nem. con.’ is an abbreviation of the Latin nemine contradicente, meaning ‘with no contrary vote’. It is not the same as ‘unanimous’ because some may have abstained in a ‘nem. con.’ vote. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 6th Draft Vote Article Number Number Subject 2-6 9 Comments (Vote 3) continued For accepting microcard and microfiche (Vote 3) Washington group (26:14) Brooke, Key, Corliss (‘ doubt that z.n. will be weakened at all by publi- cation by microfiche, which is less expensive and is becoming increasingly used for Scientific works of merit.’) Durham, Bull. 34, p. 9. Jeffords (‘The best current publication practices .. . seem to be well on the way to being micro-publishing . . . Such publi- shing is or will become a practical and economic necessity’). Against Copenhagen group (14), Houston group (11:2), Ottawa group (6:1), Kansas group (6:1). See also Bull. 34, pp. 133-5, vol. 35, pp. 9-10. For general statements of the issue, see Bull. 335 pp. 98-104, 34, p.10, 35, p.15. Vote 5 Xerography EC: Recommended Stensoffa: Recommended nem. con. Comments: For acceptance Durham (Bull. 34, p. 9), Jeffords (we should keep in step with current printing practice), Steyskal (Bull. 35, pp. 138-9). Against Washington group (27:7), Kansas group (7:0), Houston group (11 :2), Ottawa group (6:1). It was after learning of these contrary votes that EC decided to Propose that xerography should be accepted provided that the product satisfied the criteria of Article 8. Stensoffa felt strongly that we should go so far to keep up with modern develop- ments. Ta, 7b 30a Greek and non-Latin epithets to be non-declinable EC: Recommended Stensoffa: Recommended nem. con. Comments: 206 Vote Number 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6th Draft Article Number 32d(i)(2) Subject For Brooke, Galbraith, Key, London group, Washington group (12:9), Houston group (7:4), Kansas group (7:0) Against Ottawa group (3:2) Steyskal (Bull. 35, pp. 139-141) and one person each in the Houston and Ottawa groups thought that Greek epithets should be declined, but not other non-Latin ones. There seems little objection to treating epithets that are neither Latin nor Greek as indeclinable. The difference of opinion concerns Greek epithets. The weight of opinion that they should be treated as in- declinable came, as might be expected, from North America, but even there, there was opinion the other way. Botanists decline Greek epithets. Past usage in z.n. is variable, so whichever decision we take will lead to changes in the spelling of names — either to decline those that have been treated as in- declinable, or vice versa. Steyskal’s thorough analysis should be studied. Diacritic marks EC: The Committee had a variety of proposals before it and did not decisively support any. Stensoffa: The Special Session considered a number of possible ways of dealing with the difficult problem of diacritic marks in z.n., including the adoption of the International Standards Organisation method in ISO.833/1974. After pro- longed debate, three alternatives were presented for voting, with the understanding that a member who voted for the first was not precluded from voting for the second or third alternative if he was convinced by the continuing discussion. The three propositions and the votes on them were: (1) that as from 1 Jan. 1758 either some diacritic marks should be provided for in the Code (8 in favour) or none at all (5 in favour); (2) that the 1964 Code be restored with modifications to bring it nearer to ISO.833/1974 (9 in favour); and (3) that the method here proposed be adopted. This last proposition was recommended nem. con. Vote Number Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207 6th Draft Article Number 33d Subject Comments: These were varied and complicated, and there was disagreement on the facts. There was general objection to the ‘unless’ clause ending the provision in the Sixth Draft, and this need not be considered further. The Sixth Draft proposed to extend the existing Code provision to cover Scandinavian diacritics. The comments ‘against’ listed below include some who opposed any rule on the subject whatever and those who thought all diacritics should simply be deleted. For Silfverberg (Bull. 35, pp. 146-7, in part), Copenhagen group, Galbraith, Kansas group (5 :2), Heppell, Corliss, Mayr, Kerzhner Against Brooke (Bull. 35, p. 85), Bolton et al (pp. 144-5), Holthuis, Key (delete whole provision), London group (retain Code), Washington group (27 for deleting all diacritics, 11 for retaining Code, 9 for Sixth Draft), Houston group (11:0 — 6 favoured deleting whole provision), Ottawa group (5:0), Brooke, Dyte (retain Code), Cowan, 3 Polish zoologists, Crosskey (retain Code), Hahn (wrong to equate German and Scandinavian marks). Note that the old Régles provided no rule; they merely recommended that authors forming new names from personal names written sometimes with 4, 6 or U and sometimes ae, oe or ue, should use ae, oe or ue. Many names have been proposed or amended accordingly, and many changes would be necessary if that Recommendation were reversed. The Stensoffa proposal is a compromise that aims to preserve past usage while laying down a simple rule for the future — and one that appears to suit majority opinion. -i and -ii as permissible alternatives EC: Recommended against permissiveness. Stensoffa: Rejected 11:2, after which the present proposal was recommended nem. con. Comments: 208 Vote Number 10 11 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6th Draft Article Number 73a-c 74b Subject For Smith, Stuart & Conant (Bull. 27, p. 250-2, the original proposal), Melville (Bull. 35, p. 86), Houston group (7:3), Kansas group (7:0), Mayr Against Bolton et al (Bull. 35, p. 145), Brooke (p. 86), Key (p. 148-9), Spilman (p. 150-1), Holthuis, Crosskey, Washington group (12:8), Copenhagen group, Ottawa group (4:2) Some comments said that all such names should end in a single -i, but this is not possible where the personal name in question already ends in -i (Martini, Bonarelli, Ishii). The labour of verifying original spellings is admittedly exasperating, but a liberating provision has proved difficult to draft and would require careful study and later report. Multiple type specimens in cloned protozoa EC: Recommended. Stensoffa: Recommended nem. con. Comments: Few. For Brooke, Corliss, Key, Holthuis, Washington group, Ottawa group (3:1), Kansas group (5:2). Against Houston group (9:2) Discussion at the International Congresses of Proto- zoology and Parasitology (Bull. 35, pp. 200-208 in part) had shown that zoologists directly concerned favoured the proposal, if it was confined to certain extant species of protozoa in which the multiple type specimens were related clonally. Published assumption of ‘holotype’ deemed to be lectotype designation EC: Recommended. Stensoffa: Recommended nem. con. Comments: For Brooke, Galbraith, London group (large majority), Houston group (10:1), Ottawa group (7:0), Kansas group (6:1) Vote Number 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 6th Draft Article Number Entire Code Subject Against Key (Bull. 35, p. 149), Crosskey, Washington group (16:1) This problem concerns cases where it is not clear whether a description is based on one specimen or more than one, and only a single Original specimen is known to exist. There are three approaches: (1) published assumption of “holotype”’, this deemed to be lectotype designation if other syntypes are later discovered; (2) same published assumption, but specimen reverts to Syntype status if others are discovered, and a lectotype must be designated; and (3) assumption that the sole specimen might have been a Syntype and that it was effectively designated as lectotype. Method (2) is defended by Crosskey (Bull. B.M.N.H. Entomol., vol. 30(5): 272-5 and (3) by Vane-Wright, ibid. vol. 32(2): 26- 28. Method (3) is of course always binding. It is here recommended that if a ‘holotype’ was assumed and so published, it be deemed to have been desig- nated as a lectotype if other syntypes are discovered. Cases occur where species thought to have been based on a single holotype are found to have been based on syntypes. If long usage, identifications and taxonomy have been based on an assumption found to be wrong, Stability is probably best served by deeming the wrongly-assumed ‘holotype’ to be a lectotype. This is the solution proposed. The question only arises if and when additional syntypes are found; and the problem will be narrowed by making the proposed rule subject to Article 73a(iii). Adoption of term ‘epithet’ EC: Divided 3:2 Stensoffa: 8 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions. Comments: For Melville (Bull. 35, p. 83), Brooke (p. 84), Steyskal (p. 138), Galbraith, Washington group (30:15) Against Bolton et al (Bull. 35, p. 83), three Polish zoolo- gists (p. 147), London group (large majority), Copenhagen group, Riley, Comm. int. Expl. sci. Méditerranée, Crosskey, Houston group (6:5), Vote Number Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6th Draft Article Number 10e Subject Kansas group (4:2) Arguments in favour 1. ‘Epithet’ avoids the confusion as to whether ‘specific name’ means a binomen or only the second term of a binomen (and similarly for ‘subspecific name’). 2. It is shorter than ‘species-group name’ or ‘name of the species group’. 3. It is a step in the direction of harmonising zoolo- gical and botanical nomenclatural terminology. 4. Its brevity and clarity make the habit of using it easy to acquire. Arguments against 1. A change in terminology after 75 years would be unfortunate — no other term has been used for the second term of a binomen than ‘specific name’. 2. The meaning of ‘species-group name’ is said to be self-evident. 3. The parallel construction in rules dealing with family-group, genus-group and species-group names would be lost. 4. In botany, ‘epithet’ includes sub-generic names, and epithets are not regarded as names. Since zoo- logists cannot accept those propositions, the harmonisation is less evident than it might appear. Clerck’s ‘Aranei svecici’ EC: Recommended. Stensoffa: Recommended, with one vote against. Comments: None. This is a formal step to deal with apparent misinterpretation by arachnologists of Direction 104 and its antecedents. Secondary divisions of genera EC: Recommended. Stensoffa: Recommended nem. con. Comments: Cernohorsky (Bull. 36, p. 17), Kerzhner, Starobogatov, all in favour. The first two give evidence of general acceptance of such names in Insecta and Mollusca. Vote Number 3 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211 6th Draft Article Number 31 32d (iii) 33b 40 59c Subject Restoration of Article 31 EC: Recommended. Stensoffa: Recommended nem. con. with the Proviso that an author has the right to decide whether his epithet is to be treated as a Latin word Or a modern patronymic, and in either case to decide what constitutes its stem. Mandatory correction is to apply to incorrectly formed genitives. EC was instructed to draft this provision So as to avoid conflict with Article 32a(ii). Comments: Spilman (Bull. 35, pp. 150-1), in favour. Eisenmann had some objections, answered by Sabrosky and not pursued. Kerzhner drew attention to drafting problems. Correction of family-group names EC: No clear view. Stensoffa: The Special Session took the view that this point was merely a corollary of Point 9 in V.P.(79)1 (deletion of Art. 29d) and therefore did not present it to the Section on Zoological Nomen- clature at Helsinki. No vote is called for. Definition of ‘demonstrably intentional’ EC: Recommended. Stensoffa: Recommended 7:3 with 2 abstentions. Comment: Steyskal, Bull. vol. 35, p. 142, regards parts of the Provision as too restrictive or ambiguous. Correction of family-group names EC: Recommended Stensoffa: Recommended nem. con. Comments: None. Junior secondary homonyms EC: Recommended Stensoffa: Recommended nem. con. Comments: None. 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature At the close of the voting period on 19 May, votes had been received in the following order: Melville, Mroczkowski, Holthuis, Sabrosky, Ride, Kraus, Nye, Binder, Halvorsen, Corliss, Hahn, Bayer, Willink, Cogger, Tortonese, Vokes, Brinck, Starobogatov, Welch, Trjapitzin, Heppell, Alvarado, Bernardi. The state of the voting on each point was as follows: V.P.(80)1 (1) Article 8, Publication (2) Article 9, Publication (3) Article 9, Publication (4) Article 9, Publication (5) Article 9, Publication (Holthuis voted “‘for” the first part of this proposal only) (6) Article 9, Publication (7a) ) Article 30a. That Greek and non-classical (7b) ¢ epithets should be indeclinable (8) © Article 32d(i), Diacritic marks, especially umlauts (9) Article 33d, -i and -ii as incorrect subsequent spellings (10) Article 72, type slides in protozoa (11) Articles 73a-c, 74b. ““Holotype” deemed in certain circumstances to be lectotype designation (12) Presentation of Code: adoption of term “epithet” V.P.(80)2 (1) Article 3, Aranei svecici of Clerck, 1757 (2) Article 10e, acceptance of names for both primary and secondary divisions of genera (3) Article 31, restoration of this Article (4) Article 32d(iii), correction of family-group names (5) Article 33b, definition of “demonstrably intentional” (6) Article 40, status of family-group names based on emended generic names (7) Article 59c, junior secondary homonyms No voting paper was returned by Habe. Dupuis points. The following comments were sent in by Commission with their voting papers: For Against 20 3 22 1 20 3 21 2 19 3 22: 1 17 6 22 1 22 1 21 2 23 8) Bo! 1 10 12 20 2 (One abstention) 23 0 20 3 (not formally put to vote) 20 3 23 0 20 3 abstained on all members of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213 V.P.(80)1 Votes 1-6 Kraus (Vote 1): ‘I strictly vote against for the reasons explained in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 168 by the Secretary: “‘In those fields where illustrations are important, microform methods are quite impracticable, for it is not feasible to use numerous readers in comparing illustrations with each other and with speci- mens (apart from considerations of expense and fatigue), and it is expensive and time-consuming to enlarge such originals to their true size. The results are, moreover, unreliable in quality .. .’’. As this, without any doubt, is the case, it seems inadequate to include such techniques only in the Recommendation on undesirable processes.’ Bayer (Vote 1): ‘Instead of removing completely the “‘ink on paper” provision, can it not be retained as the preferable one of several alternatives? Although we cannot ignore technological advances, we should try to prevent them from degrading the tradi- tional high standards of our science by making available to all comers the means to produce on the spur of the moment legally acceptable “‘publication” without any quality control whatever.’ Hahn (Votes 1-6): ‘I think the Code should preserve the good old “ink on paper” version to constitute a publication — if not, I cannot see how to differentiate between modern methods that should be allowed and others that should not. If an author wishes to publish in microform or any other modern method, he should best publish a short notice in “ink on paper” so as to give nomenclatural status to his new taxa — a new taxon needs only half a page on average. Therefore I vote against 1, and especially 3 (microcard and microfiche) and 5 (xerography).’ Bayer (Vote 3): ‘The drawback of photography as such as a method of duplicating verbal and graphic material (namely, that it is not permanent because it is prone to fading if not adequately processed) applies equally to microcards and microfiche, as they are nothing but photographs.’ Bayer (Vote 5): Accepting xerography (and similar processes) makes available to anyone with access to a typewriter and an electrostatic copier the means to make nomenclaturally acceptable copies without any restrictions or limitations to control quality, availability and date of publication. Even though it has always been possible to print privately (by press, as some have done, by offset lithography, by mimeographing) the cost and availability of the requisite equipment significantly limited the extent to which this was done; use of electrostatic copiers can be had at small cost in hundreds of places — from post offices to banks to duplicating shops, not to mention museums, schools and universities — almost anywhere in the world. Moreover, if the machine happens to mal- 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature function and the carbon is not satisfactorily fused to the paper, print will rub off and is even more ephemeral than hectographing (gelatine dye-transfer process).’ Holthuis (Vote 5): ‘I vote for the first part (“photocopies ... reproductions’) but against the second part (“‘unless ... Article 8”’)’. Votes 7a, 7b Hahn (Vote 7a): ‘I follow the arguments of Dr Steyskal that Greek names should be declined, but not other non-Latin names.’ Heppell (Votes 7a, 7b): “So long as the masculine, feminine and neuter forms are treated as homonyms.’ Kraus (Vote 7b): ‘In principle I vote for the proposal — pro- vided that epithets derived from non-classical words or that are arbitrary combinations of letters, but have a Latin ending (-us, -a, -um), i.e. are latinised, will continue to be treated as declinable.’ Vote 8 Bayer: ‘What happens in cases where unquestionably Latin names are spelled in German orthography so that the ae and oe diphthongs appear as 4 and 6? Klunzinger, for one, did this in corals and crustaceans, including names of new taxa (e.g. 1913, N. Acta Abh. K. Leop, Carol, deutsch. Akad. Naturforsch. vol. 99 (2), p. 185, where Actda mdandrina Klunzinger n. sp. appears instead of Actaea maeandrina).’ Willink: ‘Retain Code.’ Vote 9 Tortonese: ‘Concerning the endings -i or -ii, it would be very simple to state that the -i be used when there is no terminal -i (e.g. Smith, smithi; Bonelli, bonellii).’ Vote 10 Holthuis: ‘I am for if the words “‘or presumed to form” are deleted.’ Vote 12 Kraus: ‘Against for the reasons listed in the Appendix, page 6; arguments in favour are of minor importance.’ Tortonese: ‘The choice of the word “epithet”? was very un- fortunate. We see no reason for abandoning the usual expression “specific name’’. With the proposed new situation, a greater impor- tance seems to be given to the genus, and the species (the true reality in nature) is given a somewhat secondary role. In Italian and French, the term “‘epithet’’? commonly expresses bad feeling (“‘he is ignorant’, “‘he is a fool’’; these are epithets).’ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 Bayer: ‘I have from the outset had doubts about the intro- duction of the term “epithet” into the Code. Although bringing the botanical and zoological procedures and terminologies closer together is a desirable goal, adoption of ‘epithet’ does not, upon closer scrutiny, effectively further this goal as our usage would require yet another concept of the term. Having thought in greater detail about the matter, I find that I now would not vote in favour of that proposal. As the voting period has not yet closed I would like to ask you to alter my vote to the negative.’ V.P.(80)2 Vote 4 Mroczkowski: ‘I vote for deletion of Article 32d(iii) of the 6th Draft.’ Kraus: (A comment in the same sense). Vote 5 Vokes: ‘The words “‘or when two or more names in the same work are treated in a similar way” need clarification — perhaps by the use of examples.’ DECLARATION OF RESULT OF VOTE The result of the vote on V.P.(80)1 and V.P.(80)2 is that all the points submitted for a vote except Point 12 in V.P.(80)1 received the two-thirds affirmative majority required under Article l6a(iv) of the Constitution. The publication of this report announces the intention of the Commission to incorporate the proposed amendments into the Code, in accordance with the authority given to it by the Division of Zoology of IUBS at Helsinki, and in words to be prepared by the Editorial Committee for the Commission’s approval. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 12 April 1980 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1160 TIPULA OLERACEA LINNAEUS, 1758 AND RELATED SPECIES (INSECTA, DIPTERA): STABILISATION BY THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers (a) all designations of type specimen hitherto made for the nominal species Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, are hereby set aside and the male specimen of which the hypopygium was figured by Mannheims, 1952, in Lindner, Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region (15), p. 77, fig. 39b, from Kochem/Mosel, is hereby designated neotype of that species; (b) the specific name paludosa Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Tipula paludosa, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Tipula paludosa Meigen, 1830, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (c) the specific name fimbriata Meigen, 1818, as pub- lished in the binomen TJipula fimbriata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name TJipula Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Latreille, 1810, Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2107. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the bino- men Jipula oleracea and as defined by reference to the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above (specific name of type species of Tipula Linnaeus, 1758) (Name Number 2715); (b) paludosa Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Tipula paludosa (Name Number 2716); (c) czizeki de Jong, 1925, as published in the binomen Tipula czizeki (Name Number 2717); (d) subcunctans Alexander, 1921, as published in the binomen TJipula subcunctans (Name Number 2718). (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 4, December 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217 (a) paludosa Fabricius, 1794, as published in the bino- men TJipula paludosa, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Tipula paludosa Meigen, 1830, aS suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (Name Number 1069); (b) fimbriata Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Tipula fimbriata, and as suppressed under the oa powers in (1) (c) above (Name Number (5) The family-group name TIPULIDAE (correction of Tipulariae) Latreille, [1802]. type genus Tipula Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 506. (6) The name Tipulariae Latreille, [1802], an incorrect original spelling of TIPULIDAE, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 483. NOTE ON THE DATE HERE ASSIGNED TO TIPULIDAE LATREILLE The date of the work in which Latreille proposed the name “Tipulariae”’ (corrected to TIPULIDAE), the Consid. gén. partic. Crust. Ins., vol. 3, is usually quoted as ‘[1803]’ following Griffin, 1938, J. Soc. Biblphy nat. Hist. vol. | (5), p. 157. The Commission is indebted to Professor Cl. Dupuis for drawing attention to the Journal typographique et bibliographique, 6e année, No. VI, 15 Brumaire, an 11, i.e. [6 November, 1802], where the publication of Latreille’s work is announced. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)896 An application for the clarification of the meaning of the name Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, was first presented to the Commission by Dr A.M. Hemmingsen and the late Dr H. Lemche on 15 January 1955, but not published until 1960, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 17, pp. 209-213. The subsequent history of the case is set out in the application that led to the present ruling. That application was presented by Dr A.M. Hutson, Dr R.I. Vane-Wright and Dr P.S. Cranston (British Museum (Natural History) London) on 7 August 1975. An agreed text was sent to the printer on 27 January 1976 and was published on 26 June 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 39-45. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to seven other general and seven entomological serials. 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature A comment by Professor L.B. Holthuis correcting the formal proposals to the Commission was published, with a reply by the Secretary, in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 150. The application was supported by Professor G.W. Byers (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.). No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 December 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1979) 18, in Part A, for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 44-45, except for the endorsement to paragraph 3c of these proposals; and in Part B, for or against including that endorse- ment. At the close of the voting period on 14 March 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Part A Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Bayer, Mroczkowski, Willink, Vokes, Corliss, Tortonese, Alvarado, Brinck, Hahn, Habe, Welch, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Kraus, Ride, Nye, Binder, Halvorsen, Cogger Negative Votes — two (2): Heppell, Dupuis Part B Affirmative Votes — seven (7) received in the following order: Melville, Vokes, Corliss, Alvarado, Hahn, Welch, Sabrosky Negative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Holthuis, Bayer, Mroczkowski, Willink, Tortonese, Brinck, Habe, Trjapitzin, Starobogatov, Heppell, Kraus, Ride, Dupuis, Nye, Binder, Halvorsen, Cogger No voting paper was returned by Bernardi. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Heppell: ‘After reading the original application by Hemmingsen & Lemche, all the subsequent comments, and the more recent proposals by Hutson, Vane-Wright and Cranston several times I have decided to vote against. Although I am sym- pathetic with the proponents of the case I am not happy about the particular solution requested. Of the two central issues, the first — that Tipula oleracea L. was a composite species as evidenced by the description and the extant specimen — is not too important as no one is advocating the use of the name oleracea in the sense of the latter. Of much more importance is the fact that Mannheims’ mis- identification of 7. oleracea as species A has been followed more or less uncritically since its publication in 1952, despite the evidence published by Tjeder in 1941 that the name should refer Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219 to Species B. Unquestionably right is on the side of Tjeder and the evidence that the species described by Linnaeus was species B seems to be generally accepted. It is claimed, however, that it is more expedient to disregard Tjeder’s conclusions because of the preponderance of incorrect usage outside Sweden. As the main pest species (except possibly in Germany) seems to be species B | am not convinced that nomenclatural stability will be achieved by applying the name oleracea (always accepted as a pest species) to a different taxon. As the name paludosa Meigen has been used unam- biguously for species B, I would have preferred that name to have been retained (with suppression of the earlier but unused homonym paludosa_ Fabricius). I favour the solution proposed by Commissioner Brinck (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 18, p. 135), namely to suppress oleracea altogether and use the unambiguous name submendosa for species A and paludosa for species B. I am sorry there was no opportunity to vote on this alternative as it avoids the fiction of using oleracea in a sense contrary to both original descrip- tion and extant type. While the ‘neotype’” proposed by _Hemmingsen and Lemche may serve as a good type of oleracea Mannheims, it is certainly an impostor when representing the nominal species so named by Linnaeus. With the suppression of the confused name oleracea there would remain no nomenclatural pro- blem concerning species C and the validity of the several contesting names would depend solely on subjective taxonomic judgement and be, as such, of no concern to the Commission.’ Dupuis: ‘Je vote contre l’ensemble des propositions et demande leur ajournement. Entre autres raisons de mon refus, essentiellement fondé sur mon allergie aux néotypes (qui sont toujours des faux), je donne les suivantes: (1) il me parait insensé de désigner un néotype pour une espéce linnéenne dont le type existe: (2) en violation de l’esprit du Code, Art. 75c(1, 2, 6), la proposition (1)(a) ne désigne pas comme néotype un spécimen, mais une figure, et ne donne pas le nom de institution qui conserve le spécimen figuré; (3) le rejet de fimbriata Meigen, 1818, me parait inexpli- cable; (4) les propositions (2), (5) et (6) ne dépendent pas des décisions relatives aux autres points; (S) Vhistoire du cas, dans Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 39- 45, renvoie aux tomes 17, 18, 19 du Bulletin sous une forme trop sommaire.’ 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: ezizeki, Tipula, de Jong, 1925, Een Studien over Emelten en haare bestrijding, Verh. Mededeel. Plantenz. Dienst Wageningen, p. 42 fimbriata, Tipula, Meigen, 1818, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins., vol. 1, p. 190 oleracea, Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 585 paludosa, Tipula, Meigen, 1830, Syst. Beschr. zweifl. Ins., vol. 6, p. 289 subcunctans, Tipula, Alexander, Ann. entomol. Soc. America, vol. 14, p. 127 Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 585 Tipulariae Latreille, [1802], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins., vol. 3,p.419 TIPULIDAE Latreille, [1802] , correction of preceding paludosa, Tipula, Fabricius, 1794, Entomol. Syst., vol. 4, p. 239 The following are the original references to type designations accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of Tipula Linnaeus, 1758, by Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins., pp. 442, 379; of a specimen in the Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut A. Koenig, Bonn, as neotype of Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, by Hemmingsen, A.M. & Lemche, H., 1960, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 17, pp. 212-213. CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)18 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in Part A of that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1160. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 April 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 OPINION 1161 CHAITOPHORUS C.L. KOCH, 1854 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS RULING.- (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Chaitophorus C.L. Koch, 1854, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Chaitophorus leucomelas is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Chaitophorus C.L. Koch, 1854 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Chaitophorus leucomelas C.L. Koch, 1854, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2108. (3) The specific name leucomelas C.L. Koch, 1854, as pub- lished in the binomen Chaitophorus leucomelas (specific name of type species of Chaitophorus C.L. Koch, 1854) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2719. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1003 An application from Dr Hille Ris Lambers (Bladluisonderzoek T.N.O., Bennekom, Netherlands) and Dr H.L.G. Stroyan (Plant Pathology Laboratory, Harpenden, U.K.) for a ruling on the type species of Chaitophorus C.L. Koch, 1854, was first received on 8 August 1955. Although an agreed draft had in fact been prepared by 1960, due to a misunderstanding it was not sent to the printer until 16 May 1975. It was published on 22 September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 141-142. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials, to five other general and seven entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 14 December 1979 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (79) 19 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 142. At the close of the voting period on 14 March 1980 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-four (24) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Bayer, Mroczkowski, Willink, Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 4, December 1980 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Vokes, Corliss, Tortonese, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Brinck, Hahn, Habe, Heppell, Welch, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Kraus, Ride, Dupuis, Nye, Binder, Halvorsen, Cogger Negative Votes — none (0) No voting paper was returned by Bernardi. Professor Hahn commented in returning his voting paper: ‘As far as I can see there are problems with all three species selected in the past as type species of Chaitophorus. Aphis populi is misidenti- fied and apparently not clearly separated from A. populeti; Aphis aceris is a mixture of two species which belong to a different genus; and C. leucomelas was separated by Borner, 1952, and transferred to Eichochaitophorus. Lambers & Stroyan state that “all later authors consider Eichochaitophorus to be a junior synonym of Chaitophorus”, but they do not give any supporting references nor say how many authors have dealt with this problem since 1952. They also do not mention other undoubtedly included species of Chaitophorus — are there none?’ [Chaitophorus was originally established with 12 included species. R.V.M.] ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Chaitophorus C.L. Koch, 1854, Die Pflanzenlduse, Aphiden, getreu nach dem Leben abgebildet und beschrieben, p. | leucomelas, Chaitophorus, C.L. Koch, 1854, ibid., pp. 4-5, figs. 5, 6. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(79)19 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1161. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 16 April 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 ARTEMIA LEACH, 1819 (CRUSTACEA, BRANCHIOPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION Z.N.(S.)1984. By J.H. Lochhead (Home address: 49 Woodlawn Road, London, SW6; formerly of Department of Zoology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405, U.S.A.) This application, which was largely prepared at the Biologische Station, Lunz am See, Austria, proposes that the generic name Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda, Anostraca) be conserved by the suppression of its senior synonyms Artemisia Latreille, 1817, and Artemisus Lamarck, 1818. It also proposes that Artemia Leach, 1819, be given nomenclatural precedence over Eulimene Latreille, 1817, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms. 2. For well over a hundred years the brine shrimp has almost universally been referred to by zoologists as Artemia, usually as Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 634). Because of the very large literature dealing with this animal, and with its morpho- logical variation according to changes in salinity, it is especially important that Artemia should remain the valid name of the genus. The present proposal is intended to forestall any resurrection of certain names that were published prior to the first known publi- cation of Artemia. 3. Most of the curious history involved in this case has been reviewed by Kuenen & Baas-Becking, 1938. In brief, Latreille, 1817a, p. 68, stated, without any reference, that the name Artemisia had been proposed by Leach for Cancer salinus Linnaeus, 1758. Lamarck, 1818, p. 135, followed by proposing the name Artemisus (in French, Artémis), because Artemisia was proposed for a plant. In 1819 Leach replied to both Latreille and Lamarck, stating (with- out any reference) that the name he had earlier proposed had been Artemia, not Artemisia. However, no such proposal has ever been found among Leach’s earlier papers, despite serious efforts by Dr. Barbara Gilchrist (personal communication), myself, and others. 4. The danger therefore exists that someone might try to resurrect one of the names introduced by Latreille and Lamarck, as has already been attempted by Keilhack, 1909, for Artemisia. (The status of Artemis Thompson, 1834, is considered below.) However, I know of no use of either Artemisia or Artemisus as valid names in the last fifty years, during which time the name Artemia has been used in many publications. It therefore appears that Artemisia and _ Artemisus can be considered as unused senior synonyms and that they can be suppressed under the plenary powers (Articles 23a-b Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 4, December 1980 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and 79b; Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 79, 81, 87, 89). In this connection, it should perhaps be noted that the very similar name Artemesia Bate, 1888, is in current use for a genus of penaeid shrimps. 5. Artemia was (so far as is known) first proposed by Leach, 1819, p. 543, for two species, Cancer salinus Linnaeus, 1758, and Artemia eulimene Leach, the latter an unnecessary replacement name for Eulimene albida Latreille, 1817a, p. 68. The genus was thus established with two included species. | cannot find that either of those species has ever been designated type species, and I there- fore now so designate Cancer salinus Linnaeus, 1758. 6. Artemis was proposed by Thompson, 1834, p. 104, apparently as a bona fide new name, with Artemis salinus [sic] (presumably Cancer salinus Linnaeus, 1758) as one of four species included in the genus, and without proper references to previous literature. Artemis Thompson is, therefore, a junior objective synonym of Artemia Leach and so would seem to be available as a replacement name for it, should one be necessary. However, Artemis Thompson is objectively invalid, being a junior homonym of Artemis Kirby & Spence, 1828, Introd. Entomol. (ed. 5), vol. 3, pp. 248, 641, a genus of moths. Although Artemis Kirby & Spence is itself a junior objective synonym of Actias Leach, 1815, it pre- occupies for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy, so that Artemis Thompson cannot, in fact, be used. 7. More debatable is the question of what to do with the name Eulimene Latreille, 1817a, 1817b, proposed for a new species, Eulimene albida, from the Mediterranean near Nice. As we have seen, this species was included by Leach, 1819, in Artemia. Desmarest, 1825, and Lucas, 1840, retained Latreille’s genus, but all other authors seem to have followed Leach. Baird, 1854, and Simon, 1886, believed that Latreille had described Eulimene albida from poorly preserved specimens of Artemia salina. Simon, 1886, thought that Eulimene was preoccupied, presumably because Péron & Lesueur, 1809, had proposed Eulimenes for a hydrozoan hydroid. However, according to the present Code, the ditterence in spelling of one letter is enough to prevent homonymy here. Schulze & Kiukenthal, 1929, list Eulimenes Péron & Lesueur as a nomen nudum, but they were wrong, for there is a line of generic diagnosis and the genus includes two named, described and illustrated species. 8. One dried, female specimen of Eulimene albida from Leach’s collection is in the British Museum (Natural History). I have looked at this specimen but found details difficult to observe. I can say only that the general appearance is that of an Artemia and that the caudal furca is almost or completely absent. If this last feature is not a result of breakage, the specimen must indeed be an Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 Artemia, from brine of a very high salinity. On the other hand, the specimen looks darker and more heavily sclerotised than do dried specimens of Artemia salina from the same period, and I| have not heard of any brine pools suitable for Artemia in the neighbourhood of Nice. 9. At some future date a more detailed study of the speci- men in London may become possible with special methods, or additional specimens may be found in museums in France or else- where. It may then be found that Eulimene does not belong in the genus Artemia and just conceivably that it is generically distinct from all other anostracans. Should the name Eulimene be kept available for such an unlikely eventuality, or should the name be suppressed to forestall its possible use in place of Artemia? As a solution to this problem I suggest that the Commission be asked to rule that Artemia is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Eulimene whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms. Zoologists would thus be left free to use Eulimene for a taxon other than that denoted by Artemia. 10. The following brief statement concerning papers pub- lished since the time of Leach should suffice to indicate the almost universal use of his name Artemia for the brine shrimp. I have been able to find only three papers in which one of the earlier names is used in place of Artemia. There were also three authors, prior to 1860, who incorporated Artemia within Branchipus. On the other hand, among nineteen general or monographic treatments of the Branchiopoda published between 1825 and 1962, in only one (Keilhack, 1909) is the name Artemia not used; of eight authors who have published ten or more non-taxonomic papers on the brine shrimp, all have used Artemia; and from among the 402 papers on the brine shrimp listed by Littlepage & McGinley, 1965, I know of only four, published between 1834 and 1914, that do not employ the name Artemia (references from which these data have been drawn are on file with the Secretary to the Commission). The following references meet the requirements of Article 79b: Barigozzi, C. & Fantoni, L. 1941, Monit. zool. ital. vol. 53, pp. 69-74: Benesch, R. 1969. Zool. Jahrb., Abt. Anat. Ontog. Tiere vol. 86, pp. 307-458; Boone, E. & Baas-Becking, L.G.M. 1931. J. gen. Physiol. vol. 14, pp. 753-763; Czeczuga, B. 1971. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. vol. 40B, pp. 47-52; Fautrez-Firlefyn, N. 1957. Arch. Biol. vol. 68, pp. 249-296; Fransemeier, L. 1939. Z. wiss. Zool., Abt. A vol. 152, pp. 439-472; Gilchrist, B.M. & Green, J. 1960. Proc. roy. Soc. London (B) vol. 152, pp. 118-136; Grosch, D.S. 1962. Biol. Bull. vol. 123, pp. 302-316; Mead, G.C. & Finamore, F.J. 1969. Biochemistry vol. 8, pp. 2652-2655; Stefani, R. 1968. Riv. Biol. vol. 60, pp. 599-615. 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (i) Artemisia Latreille, 1817; (ii) Artemisus Lamarck, 1818; (b) to rule that Artemia Leach, 1819, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Fulimene Latreille, 1817, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Artemia Leach, 1819 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation herein, Cancer salinus Linnaeus, 1758, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Eulimene Latreille, 1817, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms; (b) Eulimene Latreille, 1817 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Eulimene albida Latreille, 1817, with an endorsement that it is not to have priority over Artemia Leach, 1819, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) salinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the bino- men Cancer salinus (specific name of type species of Artemia Leach, 1819); (b) albida Latreille, 1817, as published in the binomen Eulimene albida (specific name of type species of Eulimene Latreille, 1817); (4) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Artemisia Latreille, 1817, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) (i) above; (b) Artemisus Lamarck, 1818, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) (ii) above. REFERENCES BAIRD, W. 1854. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) vol. 14, pp. 216-229 DESMAREST, A.-G. 1825. Considérations générales sur la classe des Crustacés (etc.), Paris and Strasbourg, pp. 393-394 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 KEILHACK, L. 1909. Phyllopoda, Blattfiisser, in Brauer’s Die Siisswasserfauna Deutschlands Heft 10,iv + 112 pp. Fischer, Jena KUENEN, D.J. & BAAS-BECKING, L.G.M. 1938. Zodl. Meded. Leiden, vol. 20, pp. 222-230 LAMARCK, J.B.P.A. de 1818. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 5. Paris LATREILLE, P.A. 1817a. in Cuvier, Le Régne Animal, vol. 3. Paris —— 1817b. Nouveau Dict. d’Hist. Nat. nouvelle édition, vol. 10. Paris LEACH, W.E. 1819. Entomostraca in Dict. Sci. Nat. vol. 14. Levrault, Strasbourg LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1. Holmiae LITTLEPAGE, J.L. & McGINLEY, M.N. 1965. California Acad. Sci. Spec. Publ. vol. 1,v + 73 pp. LUCAS, [P] H. 1840. Histoire naturelle des Crustacés (etc.) (Hist. nat. anim. : artic., vol. 4), 601 pp. Paris PERON, F. & LESUEUR, C.A. 1809. Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris vol. 14, p. 334 SCHULZE, F.E. & KUKENTHAL, W. (Editors). 1929. Nomenclator Animalium, Generum et Subgenerum, vol. 2. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Berlin SIMON, E. 1886. Ann. Soc. ent. France (6) vol. 6, pp. 393-460 THOMPSON, J.V. 1834. Zoological Researches and Illustrations, Memoir VI. King & Ridings, Cork. In the preparation of this proposal I have received most generous help from a number of people, in particular Dr I.W.B. Nye, Assistant Secretary to the Commission, and successive secretaries to the Commission. 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MELITHAEA MILNE EDWARDS & HAIME, 1857 AND ISIS OCHRACEA LINNAEUS, 1758 (COELENTERATA, ANTHOZOA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION Z.N.(S.)2150 By Katherine M. Muzik (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 02138, U.S.A.) and Frederick M. Bayer (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) The name Melitea was first published for a genus of octocorals by Lamouroux, 1812, p. 188, including one valid species, Isis ochracea Ellis (= Isis ocracea Linnaeus, 1758), and three nomina nuda. The name Melitaea was published for the same genus of octocorals by Lamarck, 1816, p. 297, an erroneous subsequent spelling of Melitea Lamouroux. 2. Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, is preoccupied by Melitea Péron & Lesueur, 1810, proposed for a genus of Scyphozoa. The spelling Melitaea as incorrectly used by Lamarck, 1816, for Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, has been used before, viz. by Fabricius, 1807, for a new genus of Lepidoptera. Therefore, even if Melitaea Lamarck, 1816 was an available name, it would be preoccupied by the available Melitaea Fabricius, 1 807. 3. The name Melithaea was first used by Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857, p. 199, for the genus of octocorals called Melitea by Lamouroux, 1812. Owing to the absence of any specific statement, and to the numerous errors demonstrable in this work, the name Melithaea must be interpreted as an incorrect subsequent spelling of Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, not a replacement name fora homonym, and is therefore unavailable under Art. 33(b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4. AE. Verrill, 1864, p. 38, recognized the homonymy of Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, which Verrill spelled Melitaea, and expressly proposed the name Melitodes as a replacement. . Subsequent to 1864, all workers accepted Melitodes Verrill, except KGlliker, 1865; Gray, 1870; and Klunzinger, 1877. At least 10 usages of Melitodes appeared between 1864 and 1956, including Hickson’s extensive study of the family MELITODIDAE in 1937. 6. Utinomi, 1956a, p. 226, resurrected Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857, for the octocoral, saying: ‘Since the emendation by Verrill (1864), the name Melitodes has long been used for the genus as a substitute for Melitea or Melitaea. However, the older name Melithaea which has been used by H. Milne Edwards Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 4, December 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 (1857), Kdlliker (1865) and Gray (1870) but not by later workers, is not to be treated as a homonym of such names according to the latest Copenhagen Decisions on Nomenclature (1953). There is no decisive evidence to prove whether it is a substitute name for Melitaea or the result of only an inadvertent error in spelling, but the new genus name Melitodes was not accepted by Gray (1870) merely quoting a suggestion of Verrill without comment. For the above reasons it seems better to retain the name Melithaea for the genus instead of Melitodes’. 7. Utinomi’s action was legal under Article 34 of the Régles Internationales de Nomenclature Zoologique because Opinion 147 (which would have rendered Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857, a homonym of Melitaea Fabricius, 1807, Melitea Péron and Lesueur, 1810, and Melithea Selys de Longchamps, 1837) was repealed by the Copenhagen Decisions. However, it was illegal under additions to Article 19, promulgated at Copenhagen, since it is an incorrect subsequent spelling and so not available as a replacement name. 8. Since 1956, all workers have followed Utinomi’s reintro- duction of Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857, for the genus of octocorals in preference to Melitodes Verrill, 1864. At least 14 usages have appeared, including Utinomi 1956a, 1956b, 1958, 1964, 1969; Bayer 1956a, 1956b, 1957, 1959; Uchida in Okada 1960; Tixier-Durivault 1966; Mai Bao Thu 1970; Faulkner, 1974; Faulkner & Chesher, 1979; and Muzik & Wainwright, 1977. Among these works is the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Bayer, 1956a), which is a work that has received wide distribution and application outside the immediate limits of systematics. 9. In view of the preponderance of usage of Melithaea for the well-known genus of octocorals since its reintroduction by Utinomi, it seems desirable to retain it rather than to return to the use of Melitodes after its abandonment for nearly twenty years. 10. The name Melitea Péron & Lesueur, 1810, has never been used for a scyphozoan since its original publication, although it was misspelled Melitaea by Gistl, 1848. Both Mayer, 1910, and Kramp, 1961, fail even to mention it in their comprehensive works on medusae. 11. The name Melitaea Fabricius, 1807, is in current use for a genus of butterflies, a group so far removed from the Octocorallia that little likelihood of confusion with it exists. 12. The specific name ocracea, as published in the combina- tion /sis ocracea Linnaeus, 1758, is the valid original spelling of the name of the type-species of the genera Melitea Lambouroux, 1812, and Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857, in spite of Linnaeus’ emendation to ochracea in the | 2th edition of the Systema Naturae, 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1767, p. 1287. From then until 1956, when Bayer employed the original spelling, ochracea was the predominant spelling for the species. Since 1956, both spellings have been used without a clear-cut majority for either. Therefore, it seems preferable to accept the incorrect subsequent spelling ochracea in view of its overall predominance since 1767, and its evident derivation from the Greek word ochros. 13s The International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is therefore requested: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) to use its plenary powers to rule that: (a) the name Melithaea as used by Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857, vol. 1, p. 199, for the genus Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, is available and is to be treated as an unjustified emendation of Melitea Lamouroux, 1812; (b) the spelling ochracea, Isis, as used by Linnaeus, 1767, p. 1287, is to be treated as a justified emendation of the specific name ocracea, (an incorrect original spelling published in the binomen Jsis ocracea Linnaeus, 1758, p. 799); to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoo- logy the name Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857, made available by use of the plenary powers in (1) (a) above (gender: feminine), type species through Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, Jsis ochracea Linnaeus, 1758, as validated by use of the plenary powers in (1) (b) above; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoo- logy the name ochracea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Jsis ocracea, and as validated by use of the plenary powers in (1) (a) above (specific name of type species of Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857); to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (a) Melitea Lamouroux, 1812, a junior homonym of Melitea Péron & Lesueur, 1810 (Medusae). (b) Melitodes Verrill, 1864, a junior objective synonym of Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857. to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, the name Jsis ocracea Linnaeus, 1758, ruled by use of the plenary powers in (1) (b) above to be an incorrect original spelling of Jsis ochracea Linnaeus, 1758. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 REFERENCES BAYER, F.M., 1956a. Octocorallia: In: Moore, R.C. (ed) Treatise on Inverte- brate Paleontology, Part F, Coelenterata, pp. F.166-231, figs. F.134- 162; Geol. Soc. America and Univ. Kansas Press. 1956b. Descriptions and redescriptions of the Hawaiian octocorals collected by the U.S. Fish Commission Steamer ‘Albatross’ (2. Gorgonacea: Scleraxonia). Pac. Sci. vol. 10, pp. 67-95 1959. The alcyonacean and black corals (Anthozoa; Octocorallia and Antipatharia) described and figured by G.E. Rumphius: In: de Wit, H.C.D. (ed) Rumphius Memorial Volume pp. 225-247, pls. 1-3. —____. & HARRY-ROFEN, R., 1957. Project Coral Fish looks at Palau. Smith- son Inst. Report for 1956, pp. 481-508, 20 pls. FABRICIUS, J.C., 1807. Die neuste Gattungs-Eintheilung der Schmetterlinge aus den Linnéischen Gattungen Papilio und Sphinx, A. Nach Fabricii Systema Glossatorum Tom I. Magazin Insekten. (Iiliger) vol. 6, pp. 277-289. FAULKNER, D. 1974. The Living reef. Quadrangle Press, N.Y. 179 pp. & CHESHER, R. 1979. Living corals. Potter Inc., N.Y., 310 pp. GISTL, J., 1848. Naturgeschichte des Thierreichs fiir hohere Schulen. xvi + 216 pp., 32 pls. Stuttgart. GRAY, J.E., 1870. Catalogue of lithophytes or stony corals in the collection of the British Museum: iv + 51pp., 14 figs., London. HICKSON, S.J., 1937. The Family Melitodidae. Trans. zool. Soc. London vol. 23, part 3, pp. 73-212, pl. 14. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, 1953. Copenhagen Decisions on zoological nomenclature. Additions to and modifications of, the Régles Internationales de Nomenclature Zoologique approved and adopted by the 14th International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen. F. Hemming, ed., London. KLUNZINGER, C.B., 1877. Die Korallthiere des rothen Meeres. Erster Theil: Die Alcyonarien und Malacodermen, 98pp., 8 taf. Berlin, Gutmann- Schen Buchhandlung (Otto Enslin). KOLLIKER, R.A., 1865. cones histiologicae, oder Atlas der Vergleichenden Gewebelehre: 2 Abt. 1 Heft. Die Bindensubstanz der Coelenteraten, pp. 87-181, pls. 10-19, 13 text figs. Leipzig, Engelmann. KRAMP, P.L., 1961.Synopsis of the Medusae of the World. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K., vol. 40, 469pp. LAMARCK, J.B., 1815. Sur les polypiers corticiféres. Mém. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, vol. 1, pp. 401-416. 1816. Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres, vol. 2. 568 + lv pp. Paris. LAMOUROUX, J.V., 1812. Extrait d’un mémoire sur la classification des Polypiers coralligenes non entitrement pierreux. Nouv. Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris Vol. 3 (63), 6, pp. 181-188. LINNAEUS, C., 1758. Systema Naturae (Edn 10) vol. 1. 824 pp. Holmiae. 1767. Systema Naturae (Edn 12) vol. 1, part 2, pp. 523-1327. Holmiae. MAI BAO THU, F., & DOMANTAY, J.S., 1970. Taxonomic studies of the 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Philippine gorgonaceans in the collections of the University of Santo Tomas, Manila. Acta Manila, Ser. A, number 6, pp. 25-73. MAYER, A.G., 1910. Medusae of the World, vol. 3, Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. vol. 109, pp. 1-735, 428 figs., 74 pls. MILNE EDWARDS, H. & HAIME, J., 1857. Histoire naturelle des coralliaires ou polypes proprement dits. 3 vols., pp. xxxiv + 326, + 633, + 560. Atlas of 36 pls. MUZIK, K, & WAINWRIGHT, S. 1977. Morphology and habitat of five Fijian sea fans. Bull. mar. Sci., vol. 27 (2), pp. 308-337. PERON, F. & LESUEUR, C.A., 1810. Histoire générale et particuliére de tous les Animaux qui composent la famille des Méduses. Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris, vol. 14, pp. 1-54. DE SELYS-LONGCHAMPS, M.E., 1837. Catalogue des Lépidopttres, ou Papillons de la Belgique, précédé du tableau des Libellulines de ce pays, pp. 1-36. Liége. TIXIER- DURIVAULT, A., 1966. Faune de Madagascar. vol. 21. Octocoralli- aires. 456 pp., 398 figs. Paris. UCHIDA, K., 1960. In: Okada, Encyclopedia Zoologica Illustrated in Colors. vol. 4, 247 pp., 123 pls. Hokuryu-Kan Publ. Co., Tokyo. UTINOMI, H., 1956a. On some alcyonarians from the West Pacific Islands (Palau, Ponape, and Bonins). Seto Mar. Biol. Lab. vol. 5(2), pp. 221- 242. 1956b. Coloured illustrations of seashore animals of Japan. Fauna and Flora of Japan No. 8: xvii + 167pp., pls. 1-64, and 1-12, figs. 1, 2. Hoikusha, Osaka. 1958. On some octocorals from deep waters of Province Tosa, Sikoku. Publ. Seto Mar. Biol. Lab. Vol. 7(1), pp. 89-110, pls. 5, 6. 1964. Coloured illustrations of seashore animals of Japan, (1964 edition) xvii + 168pp., pls. 1-64, 1-12, figs. 1, 2. 1969. Coloured illustrations of seashore animals of Japan, (1969 edition) xix + 166 pp., pls. 1-64, 1-12, figs. 1, 2. VERRILL, A.E., 1864. List of the polyps and corals sent by the Museum of Comparative Zoology in exchange, with annotations. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. vol. 1, pp. 29-60. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 GEOEMYDA GRAY, 1834, AND RHINOCLEMM YS FITZINGER, 1835 (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES): PROPOSED CONSERVATION Z.N.(S.)2287 By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, U.S.A.), Carl H. Ernst (Department of Biology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, U.S.A.) and Rozella B. Smith (DEPOB). The tropical and subtropical Eurasian and American turtle genus Geoemyda Gray, 1834, sensu lato as of Wermuth & Mertens, 1977, pp. 28-36, contains at least 28 extant species and subspecies and at least 7 and probably 32 or more extinct species. The American representatives of this group embrace 13 extant species and subspecies as reviewed by Ernst, 1978, pp. 113-134, and probably about 25 extinct species; they are regarded at present as constituting a monophyletic group, Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835, now as frequently interpreted as a subgenus (e.g., Wermuth & Mertens, op. cit.; Khosatzky & Mlynarski, 1966, p. 397) as a genus (McDowell, 1964, p. 267; Ernst, op. cit.). The names for both of these groups (here categorized as genera for the sake of convenience), Geoemyda Gray, 1834, and Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835, are threatened. It is the purpose of this proposal to conserve the currently used names by suppression of their unused senior synonym. 2. The earliest available generic name for a taxon containing nominal species now referred to Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835, is Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832. The name was used by the same author in 1815, but is there a nomen nudum. Along with six other generic names, however, Chemelys was, in 1815, placed by Rafinesque in the subfamily ‘Emidania’, characterized as follows: ‘Carapace not leathery, no hinges, digits free or webbed.’ In the 1832 work no suprageneric categories were dealt with, but each new genus was briefly characterized and one or two species assigned to it. The whole account for Chemelys stated: ‘Warty scales, no valves, 4 toes to all the feet. 7. verrucosa etc.’ These characters, particularly in combination with the subfamily characters given in 1815, leave no question that no member of the family TRIONYCHIDAE was intended, since all have leathery shells and were placed in another subfamily so characterized in 1815, in the genus “‘Jrionix Geof.’ (given as ‘Trionyx’ in 1832). 3. The family intended by Rafinesque is of some impor- Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 4, December 1980 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature tance, since the name verrucosa had been used to denote two different species of turtle by 1832. For one, Schoepff, 1795, pp. 90 and 105, established ‘Testudo (ferox?) verrucosa’ from eastern Florida that is now recognized as a junior synonym of Testudo ferox Schneider, 1783 (= Trionyx ferox of today). As a trionychid, lacking ‘scales’, this name could not have been intended by Rafinesque in citing ‘7. verrucosa’. 4. Walbaum, 1782, p. 116, published the name Testudo verrucosa, which Wermuth, 1956, p. 403, allocated to what is now known as Rhinoclemmys punctularia (Daudin, [1801]). It was a name adopted as valid only by one other person (Suckow, 1798, p. 40) as Testudo verrucosa, and it was overlooked by subsequent authors until 1956 when Wermuth commented at some length on its proper disposition. Wermuth regarded Walbaum’s name as ‘illegitimate’ (i.e., not available for nomenclature) on grounds of the entire work being non-binominal (see also Wermuth & Mertens, 1977, p. 31). Wermuth did however accept ‘Jestudo verrucosa Suckow, 1798’ as available for nomenclature, but rejected its use as a valid name on the grounds of it being a junior primary homonym of Testudo verrucosa Schoepff, 1795. 5. Three facts relative to Testudo punctularia Daudin, [1801] are pertinent to the present consideration: (1) that name was conserved for its species in Opinion 660 of the I.C.Z.N., 1963, p. 187, placing it on the Official List; (2) its senior synonym, Testudo dorsata Schoepff, 1801 was suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority by use of the plenary powers in the same Opinion; and (3) punctularia Daudin, [1801], is the valid name for Testudo dorsata Schoepff, 1801, the type species of Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835, by subsequent designation by Lindholm, 1929, Ded ay 6. Although Testudo verrucosa, whether accepted from Walbaum or Suckow, cannot be used as a valid name, it is accept- able as the type species of Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832. However, Chemelys has never been used as a valid name in any context, having been considered by Romer, 1956, p. 514; Applegarth, 1973, pp. 4 and 22; Pritchard, 1975, p. 14; and Wermuth & Mertens, 1977, p. 104, as a junior synonym of Trionyx Geoffroy, 1809. Only Webb, 1973, p. 2, has clearly shown that Chemelys cannot be a trionychid, and is properly assigned to the genus now known as Rhinoclemmys. No one else, so far as we can determine, has mentioned the name. As explained previously, allocation to Trionyx is completely untenable. Chemelys is a senior subjective synonym of Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835, as the type species of each is a subjective synonym of TJestudo punctularia Daudin, [1801]. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 7. The consensus among herpetologists we have consulted is that the stability of nomenclature would be better served by suppressing Rafinesque’s name and hence conserving Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger. Rhinoclemmys has been accepted either as a genus or as a subgenus of Geoemyda Gray in application to tropical American species by most workers since 1964 when McDowell segregated it from Geoemyda. Species have been referred to Geoemyda since 1902 when Stejneger pointed out that Nicoria, used prior to that date, was not the proper name. General adoption of Nicoria stemmed from 1889 (Boulenger), but prior to that time, and even to a certain extent in the early 1900s, Chelopus, Emys, Rhino- clemmys, Geoclemmys, Callichelys, Clemmys and even Chrysemys, or spelling variants of these and of Geoemyda, were used in a pattern of much uncertainty and confusion. Thanks to the work of recent investigators, particularly McDowell, the taxonomic un- certainties have been largely removed and nomenclatural stability is now the greatest need. An attempt to resolve the matter was essayed in 1976 (Smith, Smith & Sawin) with resurrection of the completely overlooked name Callopsis Gray, 1863, to supplant both Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 and ‘Rhinoclemys’ of Gray, 1863, both of which were regarded as unavailable (the first through having a type species whose name had been suppressed, the second as an incorrect subsequent spelling). In reality Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger is available as the suppression by the Commission of the name of its type species only prevents the use of the specific name itself. A restitution of Rhinoclemmys as a valid genus (or subgenus of Geoemyda) was subsequently proposed by Smith, 1978, following the initial defence of Rhinoclemmys by Fretey, Hoogmoed and Lescure, 1977. Obviously these changes are extremely disturbing to nomenclatural stability. Furthermore, Chemelys Rafinesque, if not suppressed, would also replace Geoemyda Gray, 1834. 8. Khosatzky & Mlynarski, 1966; Mlynarski, 1976; and Wermuth & Mertens, 1977, for example — all important revisionary or synoptic works — recognized the genus Geoemyda with four subgenera (Geoemyda Gray, 1834; Heosemys Stejneger, 1902; Melanochelys Gray, 1869; Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835). Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832, if not suppressed, would replace Geoemyda as the name of the genus, and in consequence would also replace Rhinoclemmys as a subgeneric name. 9. Since Rafinesque’s Chemelys is a bona fide nomen oblitum, having never been used as a valid name from the time of its original proposal, suppression of the name under Article 79 is justified providing the names that would be replaced by it, in application of the Law of Priority, can be shown to have been 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature used during the past 50 years by at least 5 different authors in at least 10 different publications. 10. Geoemyda Gray has been accepted by all critical authors ever since Stejneger, 1902, p. 238, pointed out its proper appli- cation. Within the past 50 years examples of the most authoritative usages include M. Smith, 1931, p. 88; Mertens & Wermuth, 1955, p. 350; Wermuth & Mertens, 1961, p. 82; Kuhn, 1964, p. 86; McDowell, 1964, p. 269; Khosatzky & Mlynarski, 1966, p. 397; Pritchard, 1967, p. 108; Mlynarski & Wermuth, 1975, p. 100; Mlynarski, 1976, p. 81; and Wermuth & Mertens, 1977, p. 28. Many others could be listed, but those cited are all major contributions. 11. Rhinoclemmys was revived by Schmidt in 1928 as a full genus, by Lindholm in 1929 as a subgenus, and by McDowell in 1964 as a full genus, although the name was used frequently long before, by Gray in the 1863-1873 era. Since 1927, however, Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835, or its incorrect subsequent spelling ‘Rhinoclemys’ of Gray, 1863, has been used by Schmidt, 1928, p. 193, genus Rhinoclemmys; Lindholm, 1929, p. 184, subgenus Rhinoclemmys; Froes, 1957, p. 9, genus Rhinoclemmys; McDowell, 1964, p. 267, genus ‘Rhinoclemys’; Khosatzky & Mlynarski, 1966, p. 397, subgenus ‘Rhinoclemys’; Smith & Taylor, 1966, p. 12, genus Rhinoclemmys; Zug, 1966, p. 3, genus ‘Rhinoclemys’; Casas Andreu, 1967, p. 61, genus Rhinoclemmys; Zug, 1971, p. 40, genus ‘Rhinoclemys’; Ernst & Barbour, 1972, p. 277, genus ‘Rhinoclemys’ ; Meyer & Wilson, 1973, p. 2, genus Rhinoclemmys; Mlynarski & Wermuth, 1975, pp. 100, 487, subgenus ‘Rhinoclemys’; Winokur & Legler, 1975, p. 278, genus ‘Rhinoclemys’; Fretey, Hoogmoed & Lescure, 1977, p. 63, genus Rhinoclemmys; Wermuth & Mertens, 1977, p. 29, subgenus Rhinoclemmys; and Smith, 1978, genus Rhinoclemmys. A number of other usages at least of ‘Rhinoclemys’ could be cited. Aside from the aborted attempt (Smith, Smith & Sawin, 1976) to establish Callopsis for the American genus (or sub- genus), and several subsequent usages of that name by various authors, all informed references to that genus (or subgenus) have employed the name Rhinoclemmys or the incorrect subsequent spelling Rhinoclemys, since 1964, although the name was used sporadically prior to that date. 12. As there is no reasonable doubt that the type species of Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832, and Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835, are conspecific there is no likelihood of them being required to denote separate taxa and nothing would be gained by requesting that Rhinoclemmys be given precedence over Chemelys. We thus conclude that it is appropriate to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo- nymy; (2) toplace on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Geoemyda Gray, 1834 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation, Testudo spengleri Gmelin, 1789; (b) Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Lindholm, 1929, Testudo dorsata Schoepff, 1801, Name No. 752 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, (= Testudo punctularia Daudin, 1801, Name No. 1906 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) spengleri Gmelin, 1789, as published in the bino- men Testudo spengleri (specific name of the type species of Geoemyda Gray, 1834); (4) to place Chemelys Rafinesque, 1832, as suppressed by use of the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES APPLEGARTH, J.S. 1973. Index to the genera of reptiles — a device to assist curators. Testudinata, Crocodylia and Rhynchocephalia. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Privately printed. 22pp. BOULENGER, G.A. 1889. Catalogue of the chelonians, rhynchocephalians and crocodiles in the British Museum. London, Taylor and Francis. vol. x, 311 pp., 6 pls. 73 figs. CASAS ANDREU, G. 1967. Contribucién al conocimiento de las tortugas dulceacuicolas de México. Mexico, D.F., Univ. Nac. Aut6én. Mexico, Fac. Ciencias, Dept. Biol. [vii] , 96pp., 19 pls., 7 maps. COPE, E.D. 1865. Third contribution to the herpetology of tropical America. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 17, pp. 185-198. DAUDIN, F.M. 1801. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére, des reptiles; on Tome Second. Paris, Dufart, 432pp., pls. 16-28. ERNST, C.H. 1978. A revision of the neotropical turtle genus Callopsis (Testu- dines: Emydidae: Batagurinae). Herpetologica, vol. 34(2), pp. 113-134, figs. 1-4. & BARBOUR, R.W. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Lexington, Kentucky, Kentucky Univ. Press. x, 347pp., 223 figs. FITZINGER, L. 1835. Entwurf einer systematischen Anordnung der Schild- kroten nach den Grundsatzen der natiirlichen Methode. Annin. Naturh. Mus. Wien, vol. 1, pp. 103-128. FRETEY, J.. HOOGMOED, M.S. & LESCURE, J. 1977. Etude taxonomique 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature de Rhinoclemmys punctularia punctularia (Daudin) (Testudinata, Emydidae). Zool. Meded. vol. 52(6), pp. 63-80, figs. 1-5, pl. 1. FROES, O.M. 1957. Notas quelonologicas 1, Atualizacao da nomenclatura dos quelénios brasileiros. Iheringia, vol. 2, pp. 6-24. GRAY, J.E. 1834. [Comments on specimens exhibited at the British Museum. ] Proc. zool. Soc. London, 1834, pp. 99-104. 1855. Catalogue of shield reptiles in the collection of the British Museum. Part I. Testudinata (tortoises). London, Taylor and Francis. iv, 79, ii pp., 50 pls. 1860. Description of a new species of Geoclemmys from Ecuador. Proc. zool. Soc. London, 1860, pp. 231-232, pl. 19. 1861. On a new species of water-tortoise (Geoclemmys melanosterna) from Darien. Proc. zool. Soc. London, 1861, pp. 204-205. 1863. Note on American Emydidae, and Professor Agassiz’s obser- vations on my catalogue of them. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (3) vol. 12, pp. 176-183. 1869. Notes on the families and genera of tortoises (Testudinata), and on the characters afforded by the study of their skulls. Proc. zool. Soc. London, 1869, pp. 165-225, figs. 1-20, pl. 15. 1870. Supplement to the catalogue of shield reptiles in the collection of the British Museum. Part I. Testudinata (tortoises). With figures of the skulls of 36 genera. London, Taylor and Francis. x, 120 pp., 40 figs. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 1963. Opinion 660: Suppression under the plenary powers of seven specific names of turtles (Reptilia, Testudines). Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 20(3), pp. 187-190. KHOSATZKY, L.I. & MLYNARSKI, M. 1966. Fossil tortoises of the genus Geoemyda Gray, 1834 (s. lato) of Europe. Acta zool. Cracov. vol. 11 (13), pp. 297-342, figs. 1-7, pls. 29-33. KUHN, O. 1964. Testudines. Fossilium Catalogus (Animalia) Heft 107, pp. 1-299. LINDHOLM, W.A. 1929. Revidiertes Verzeichnis der Gattungen der rezenten Schildkroten nebst Notizen zur Nomenklatur einiger Arten. Zool. Anz. vol. 81, pp. 275-295. McDOWELL, S.B. Jr. 1964. Partition of the genus Clemmys and related problems in the taxonomy of the aquatic Testudinidae. Proc. zool. Soc. London, vol. 143(2), pp. 239-279, figs. 1-11. MERTENS, R. & WERMUTH, H. 1955. Die rezenten Schildkroten, Krokodile and Briickenechsen. Eine kritische Liste der heute lebenden Arten und Rassen. Zool. Jb., Abt. Allg. Zool. vol. 83(5), pp. 323-440. MEYER, J.R. & WILSON, L.D. 1973. A distributional checklist of the turtles, crocodilians and lizards of Honduras. Contr. Sci., Los Angeles Co. Mus., No. 244, pp. 1-39. MLYNARSKI, M. 1976. Handbuch der Palaoherpetologie. Teil 7. Testudines. Stuttgart, Fischer, vi, 130 pp., 116 figs. _____ & WERMUTH, H. 1975. Order Testudines. Pp. 75-108, 486-489, ill., in Grzimek’s Animal life encyclopaedia, vol. 6. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold. 589 pp., ill. (partly col.). PRITCHARD, P.C.H. 1967. Living turtles of the world. Neptune City, New Jersey, TFH Publications. 288 pp., ill. (partly col.). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239 1975. Directory of turtle genera. Chelonia vol. 2(5), pp. 10-29. RAFINESQUE [-SCHMALTZ], C.S. 1815. Analyse de la nature; ou, Tableau de l’Univers et des corps organisés. Palermo, privately printed. 224 pp. 1832. Description of two new genera of soft shell turtles of North America. Atlantic J. and Friend of Knowl. vol. 1, pp. 64-65. ROMER, A.S. 1956. Osteology of the reptiles. Chicago, Univ. Chicago Press. Xxi, 772 pp., 248 figs. SCHMIDT, K.P. 1928. Reptiles collected in Salvador for the California Insti- tute of Technology. Zool. Ser. Field Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 12(16), pp. 193-201. SCHNEIDER, J.G. 1783. Allgemeine Naturgeschichte der Schildkréten nebst einem systematischen Verzeichnisse der einzelnen Arten . . . Leipzig, Miller. xlviii, 364 pp., 2 pls. (col.). SCHOEPFF, J.D. 1792-1801. Historia testudinum iconibus illustrata. Erlangen, J.J. Palm. xii, 136 pp., 34 pls. SCHWEIGGER, A.F. 1812. Monographiae cheloniorum. KOnigsberg. Arch. Naturw. vol. 1, pp. 271-368, 406-458. SMITH, H.M. 1978. The status of suppressed names and of Callopsis Gray (Reptilia: Testudines). Herpet. Rev. vol. 9(3), p. 93. ——_— , SMITH, R.B. & SAWIN, H.L. 1976. The generic name of the neo- tropical semiterrestrial emydine turtles. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci., vol. 22(4), pp. 211-217. & TAYLOR, E.H. 1966. Herpetology of Mexico. Ashton, Maryland, Eric Lundberg. 29, 239, 118, 253 pp. SMITH, M. 1931. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol. 1. Loricata, Testudines. London, Taylor and Francis. xxviii, 185 pp., 42 figs. 2 pls., map. STEJNEGER, L. 1902. Some generic names of turtles. Proc. biol. Soc. Washington, vol. 15, pp. 235-238. SUCKOW, G.A. 1797-1799. Anfangsgriinde der theoretischen und angewandten Naturgeschichte der Thiere. Vol. 3. Amphibien. Leipzig, Weidmann. WALBAUM, J.J. 1782. Chelonographia oder Beschreibung einiger Schildkroten nach natirlichen Urbildern. Liibeck and Leipzig, Johann Friedrich Gledrisch. viii, 132 pp., 1 pl. WEBB, R.G. 1973. Trionyx ferox. Cat. Am. Amph. Reptl. no. 138, pp. 1-3, map. WERMUTH, H. 1956. Versuch der Deutung einiger bisher iibersehener Schild- krdten Namen. Zool. Beitr. vol. 2(2/3), pp. 399-423. WERMUTH, H. & MERTENS, R. 1961. Schildkréten, Krokodile, Briickenechsen. Jena, Fischer. xxvi, 422 pp., 270 figs. 1977. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Testudines, Croco- dylia, Rhynchocephalia. Das Tierreich, vol. 100, pp. i-xxvii, 1-174. WINOKUR, R.M. & LEGLER, J.M. 1975. Chelonian mental glands. J. Morphol. vol. 147(3), pp. 275-291, figs. 1-23. ZUG, G.R. 1966. The penial morphology and the relationships of cryptodiran turtles. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, No. 647, pp. 1-24, figs. 1-5. 1971. Buoyancy, locomotion, morphology of the pelvic girdle and hindlimb, and systematics of the cryptodiran turtles. Misc. Publs. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan. no. 142, pp. 1-98, figs. 1-21. 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TESTUDO SCRIPTA SCHOEPFF, 1792: EMYS CATASPILA GUNTHER, 1885: PROPOSED CONSERVATION (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES). Z.N.(S.)2315. By John M. Legler (Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, U.S.A.), Hobart M. & Rozella B. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, U.S.A.) In 1855 Gray described and named Emys ventricosa on the basis of a shell purchased from Warwick, a dealer, from an unknown locality (Gray, 1855, p. 28, pl. 14). Although Gray still recognized the species as valid in his latest pertinent works (Gray, 1873a, p. 148; 1873b, p. 14), he was the only one ever to do so. Even in his original description he indicated with a question-mark that ventricosa might be the same as Emys mobilensis of Holbrook, 1838 (the original proposal) or of himself in 1844 or of Duméril & Duméril, 1851. Agassiz (1857, p. 641) categorically assigned ventricosa to the synonymy of ‘Ptychemys mobilensis’ (Holbrook), and Gray at first agreed to that synonymy (1858, pp. 286-287), but later (1863, p. 182) associated a question-mark (?) with it. Strauch, 1862, p. 32; 1865, p. 79, also concurred, placing ventri- cosa in the synonymy of ‘Clemmys mobilensis’ (Holbrook). Gray reconsidered the matter in 1870 (p. 47}, 1872 (p. 14) and 1873 (loc. cit.), each time recognizing ‘Pseudemys ventricosa’ as valid. The name has not subsequently appeared in the literature as either a synonym or a valid name, and its proper allocation has remained undetermined. 2. A list of Mexican turtles in the British Museum (Natural History) was recently requested by the second and third authors for use in preparation of a review of the turtles of Mexico. Dr. Alice G.C. Grandison graciously complied. The list included the holotype of Emys ventricosa (1947.3.5.18, formerly 848.7.28.24), with the datum ‘Mexico’ — the first indication known to us of a geographic source for the specimen. In response to a request for further infor- mation, Mr. A.F. Stimson kindly gathered all pertinent information available and reported as follows: “The specimen formed part of a collection purchased from Mr. Warwick in 1848. The locality given for the entire collection was simply ““Mexico’’. Other species in this collection that I have been able to trace are Ctenosaura acanthura (Shaw, 1802), Micrurus fulvius maculatus Roze, 1967, M.f. micro- galbineus Brown & Smith, 1942, Kinosternon cruentatum (Duméril & Bibron, 1851), Kinixys belliana Gray, 1821, and some or all of Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 4, December 1980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241 the syntypes of Emys venusta Gray, 1855, Emys cataspila Gunther, 1885 and Cistudo (Onychotria) mexicana Gray, 1849. The presence of Kinixys in a reputedly Mexican collection indicates that Warwick’s data are not entirely reliable and that may have been the reason for Gray’s non-acceptance of Mexico as the type-locality of ventricosa.’ 3. We concluded that, in spite of the mentioned inconsis- tency, part of the collection was clearly of Mexican origin. With one exception, all the taxa represented occur on the Atlantic slopes of Mexico, and some occur nowhere else. 4. The proper allocation of the name ventricosa thus entered the essential purview relative to the proposed survey of the turtles of Mexico, although pertinence to the genus Pseudemys, as we interpret it, distinct from Chrysemys (cf. Smith & Smith, 1979, pp. 419-420), has long been recognized. Drs. Grandison and Stimson kindly loaned the holotype of ventricosa for examination by Legler. The specimen conforms in high degree with the geographic variants of Pseudemys scripta occurring in southern Tamaulipas and extreme northern Veracruz. Four of the taxa described from the Warwick collection have already had their type localities restricted to Tampico, Tamaulipas, which was an active port in the early 1800’s, lies within the range of geographic variation in P. scripta that conforms with the type of ventricosa, and thus to a high degree of probability was the source of a considerable part if not all of Warwick’s collection from Mexico. All the American taxa listed by Stimson occur in that vicinity. We accordingly here restrict the type locality of Emys ventricosa to Tampico, Tamaulipas. 5. The holotype (a dried shell) was examined, measured and photographed by Legler in December 1978; the following is abstracted from notes made at that time. Shell broken (probably since original description) along sutures in several places on posterior part of carapace and along the hypoplastral-xiphiplastral suture. Parts of scutes missing from anterior plastron and posterior carapace (loose scutes are associated with the specimen). Shell was cleaned superficially and taped together for examination and measurement. 6. There is extensive wear and abrasion on the abdominal and posterior halves of the pectoral scutes. In this region several layers of dead dermal bone overlie areas of epidermal scute replace- ment. This condition strongly suggests that the specimen was a captive. The condition of the shell (weak sutures in places, internal discoloration, lack of periosteum and scraps of dark tissue) make it virtually certain that the specimen died and decomposed at least partially before its preservation as a scientific specimen. An old, 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature healed spear or bullet wound on upper one-third of left 2nd lateral scute. Data tags attached to hole drilled in left hyoplastron. Both BM numbers inscribed on plastron in black ink. 7. Longitudinal rugosities on carapacal scutes pronounced. Ground color yellowish horn or straw; dark markings medium to very dark brown. This is a melanistic adult. Markings quite in- distinct. Ocelli fairly distinct on marginals 1-8, their centers near lower posterior corner of each marginal. Only vague indications of other carapacal marks. No discernible plastral pattern except for brownish interlaminal seams. 8. Dimensions (in mm): carapace length 360; carapace width 255; shell height 156; plastral scute lengths (interlaminal) from anterior to posterior 49, 29, 40, 85,41, 51. 9. There is no question that Gray’s figure depicts this specimen although it shows neither the breakage nor the pathologic damage described. From this it is concluded that the breakage occurred subsequent to original illustration and that the artist chose not to show the abraded shell. These factors combine to show more pattern in the Gray illustration than is actually evident on the specimen at present. 10. Notes, photos and data on approximately 2,000 speci- mens of the Pseudemys scripta group were consulted ad libitum for comparative purposes. On the basis of shell proportions, relative sizes of plastral scutes, pattern and texture of shell, adult size, and pattern of adult melanism, it is clear that the holotype of Emys ventricosa corresponds most closely to populations of Pseudemys scripta on the eastern coastal lowlands of Mexico somewhere between the latitudes of 20° and 25° north (extreme northern Veracruz and southern Tamaulipas). 11. With our present definitive identification of ventricosa, a problem of nomenclatural stability is introduced, since that name is an obvious nomen oblitum, unused for over 100 years. The sub- species to which it belongs is Pseudemys scripta cataspila (Gunther, 1885, p. 4, pl. 6, fig. B), which name has been recognized as valid, at either specific or subspecific level, erratically ever since its original description, as indicated by the following chresonymy: Emys (Clemmys) cataspila Giinther, 1885, p. 4, pl. 6, fig. B. Pseudemys cataspila, Cope, 1887, p. 22; Hartweg, 1939, p. Fe Chrysemys ornata cataspila, Boulenger, 1889, p. 82. Emys cataspila, Duges, 1896, p. 479 (part). Pseudemys scripta cataspila, Carr, 1938, p. 135 (part); Hartweg, 1939b, p. 4; Smith & Taylor, 1950a, p. 346; ibid., 1950b, p. 32 (part); Carr, 1952, p. 262; Werler & Smith, 1952, p. 553; Casas Andreu, 1965, pp. 393, 396; Moll & Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243 Legler, 1971, p. 4. Pseudemys ornata cataspila, Mertens & Wermuth, 1955, p. 364; Parsons, 1960, p. 118; Pritchard, 1967, p. 84; Greene, 1972, p. 2. Chrysemys scripta cataspila, Smith & Smith, 1975, p. 5; ibid., 1976, p. T-C-5; Slavens, 1976, p. 22. 12. Not all recent authors have accepted cataspila as a valid taxon; Wermuth & Mertens, for example, in both 1961 (pp. 147-148) and 1977 (p. 56) regarded it as inseparable from Pseudemys o. ornata (Gray, 1831). However, all authors who have accepted as valid the particular subspecies to which the name cataspila applies, beginning with Carr in 1938, have used that name for it. The name has also been interpreted by several other workers prior to 1900 as applicable to a distinct, valid species — the same entity now understood as a subspecies of scripta. 13. Emys ventricosa Gray (1855) has not been accepted as a valid name by anyone since 1873, never by anyone but the original author, and never with any clear statement of its geographic origin. Emys cataspila Ginther (1885) has been used as a valid name in at least 20 works by 20 different authors for populations of Pseudemys in northeastern Mexican coastal drainages. Since we now know (here reported for the first time) that the earlier name Emys ventricosa also applies to these populations, we here request the Commission to suppress the name Emys ventricosa Gray, in conformance with the terms of Article 79. 14. Concomitantly we ask for addition of Emys cataspila Gunther (1885) to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, thereby nomenclaturally validating it for the taxon represented by its holotype, although since complete agreement upon the taxonomic validity of that taxon does not yet exist, it should be understood by all workers that protection from senior synonyms or homonyms is not conferred by inclusion on an Official List. 15. The earliest name for the species to which Emys cataspila Gunther is assigned by most workers, including ourselves, is Testudo scripta Schoepff (1792, p. 16, pl. 3, figs. 4, 5), now Pseudemys scripta. The broad concept of that species, to which we subscribe, is rejected by some workers (e.g. Mertens & Wermuth, 1955, p. 364; Wermuth & Mertens, 1977, p. 56), who recognize two or more species in the same complex (Wermuth & Mertens recognize four!), and regard cataspila as a synonym of Pseudemys o. ornata (Gray) or as a valid subspecies of that species; however, even that name (Emys ornata Gray, 1831, p. 30) is junior to Testudo scripta Schoepff, 1792. In addition, some workers have not regarded cataspila as a subspecies distinct from what we recognize as Pseudemys scripta venusta (Gray, 1855, pp. 24-25, pl. 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 122) (originally described as Emys venusta), occurring on the Atlantic coastal plain immediately south of the range of Ps. cataspila. Were that conclusion ultimately to be adopted, regarding the composite as subspecifically distinct from the Pacific coastal populations on which the name ornata is based, the name venusta would take priority over cataspila. Thus the nomenclature of this group remains currently in question, and should be free to conform with future taxonomic conclusions without nomenclatural restraints. The one certainty is that the name TJestudo scripta is secure for at least a part of the complex, if not the whole of it. Hence we ask for addition of that name also to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The dates of that name and of cataspila determine which is the specific name, if they are considered con- specific, whether either or both is on the Official List or not. 16. In recapitulation we therefore ask the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the species- group name ventricosa Gray, 1855, as published in the binomen Emys ventricosa, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the species-group name scripta Schoepff, 1792, as published in the binomen Testudo scripta, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the species-group name cataspila Ginther, 1885, as published in the binomen Emys cataspila, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; and (4) to place the species-group name ventricosa Gray, 1855, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Species-group Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BOULENGER, G.A. 1889. Catalogue of the chelonians, rhynchocephalians and crocodiles in the British Museum. London, Taylor & Francis. x, 311 pp., 6 pl., 73 figs. CARR, A.F. 1938. Notes on the Pseudemys scripta complex. Herpetologica, vol. 1, pp. 131-135, pl. 13. 1952. Handbook of turtles: the turtles of the United States, Canada, and Baja California. Ithaca, N.Y., Comstock. xviii, 542 pp., 82 pls., 37 figs., 23 maps. CASAS ANDREU, G. 1965. Estudio preliminar sobre las tortugas de agua dulce en Mexico. An. Inst. nac. Invest. biol.-pesq., vol. 1, pp. 365-401, pls. 1-15. COPE, E.D. 1887. Catalogue of batrachians and reptiles of Central America Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 and Mexico. Bull. U.S. natl. Mus., No. 32, pp. 1-98. DUGES, A.A.D. 1896. Reptiles y batracios de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Naturaleza, (2) vol. 2, pp. 479-485. DUMERIL, A.M.C. & DUMERIL, A.H.A. 1851. Catalogue méthodique de la collection des reptiles du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris, Gide & Boudry. iv. 224 pp. GRAY, J.E. 1831. Synopsis reptilium. Part 1. Cataphracta. Tortoises, croco- diles and enyaliosaurians. London, Treiittel & Wlirtz. vii, 78 pp. 1844. Catalogue of the tortoises, crocodiles, and amphisbaenians, in the collection of the British Museum. London, Taylor & Francis. viii, & Boudry, iv, 224 pp. 1855. Catalogue of shield reptiles in the collection of the British Museum. Part I. Testudinata (tortoises). London, Taylor & Francis. iv, 79, ii pp., 50 pls. 1858. Some observations on Professor Agassiz’s criticisms on the ‘Catalogue of shield reptiles in the collection of the British Museum’. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (3) vol. 1, pp. 285-289. 1863. Note on American Emydidae, and Professor Agassiz’s obser- vations on my catalogue of them. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (3) vol. 12, pp. 176-183. 1870. Supplement to the catalogue of shield reptiles in the collection of the British Museum. Part I. Testudinata (tortoises). With figures of the skulls of 36 genera. London, Taylor & Francis. x, 120 pp., 40 figs. 1872. Appendix to the catalogue of shield reptiles in the collection of the British Museum. Part I. Testudinata (tortoises). London, Taylor & Francis. iv, 28 pp. 1873a. Notes on tortoises. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (4) vol. 11, pp. 143- 149. 1873b. Hand-list of the specimens of shield reptiles in the British Museum. London, Taylor & Francis. iv, 124 pp. GREENE, H.W. 1972. Mexican reptiles in the Senckenberg Museum. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Carnegie Mus. 15 pp., mimeo. GUNTHER, A.C.L.G. 1885. Biologia centrali-americana, Reptilia and Batrachia. London, Porter. xx, 326 pp., 76 pls. (Parts 1-7, pp. 1-56, pls. 1-25). HARTWEG, Norman. 1939a. Further notes on the Pseudemys scripta complex. Copeia, 1939(1), p. 55. 1939b. A new American Pseudemys. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, No. 397, pp. 1-4. HOLBROOK, J.E. 1838. North American herpetology. Philadelphia. Vol. 2: i-iv, 5-1000 pp., 30 pls. MERTENS, R. & WERMUTH, H. 1955. Die rezenten Schildkréten, Krokodile und Briickenechsen. Eine kritische Liste der heute lebenden Arten und Rassen. Zool. Jb., Abt. allg. Zool, vol. 83(5), pp. 323-440. MOLL, E.O. & LEGLER, J.M. 1971. The life history of the neotropical slider turtle, Pseudemys scripta (Schoepff), in Panama. Bull. Los Angeles Co. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 11, pp. 1-102, 56 figs. PARSONS, T.S. 1960. The structure of the choanae of the Emydinae (Testu- dines, Testudinidae). Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 123 (4), pp. 113-127. 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PRITCHARD, P.C.H. 1967. Living turtles of the world. Jersey City, New Jersey, TFH Publs. 288 pp., ill. (partly col.). SCHOEPFF, J.D. 1792-1801. Historia testudinum iconibus illustrata. Erlangen, J.J. Palm. xii, 136 pp., 34 pls. (fasc. 1-2: i-xii, 1-32, pls. 1-10, 1792; fasc. 3-4: 33-80, pls. 11-16, 16B, 18-20, 1793; fasc. 5: 81-112, pls. 17, 21-25, 1795; fasc. 6: 113-136, pls. 25-29, 30A-B, 31-34, 1801). SLAVENS, F.L. 1976. The working guide to breeding potential for reptiles and amphibians in United States zoos. Seattle, Washington, Woodland Park Zool. Gardens. ix, 81 pp. SMITH, H.M. & SMITH, R.B. 1975. An analysis of the knowledge of the turtle fauna of Mexico. Chelonia, vol. 2(3), pp. 3-8. 1976. Synopsis of the herpetofauna of Mexico. Volume III. Source analysis and index for Mexican reptiles. North Bennington, Vermont, John Johnson. 997 pp. 1980. Synopsis of the herpetofauna of Mexico. Volume VI. Guide to Mexican turtles and bibliographic addendum III. North Bennington, Vermont, John Johnson, xviii, 1044 pp. 46 maps, 64 pls. & TAYLOR, E.H. 1950a. Type localities of Mexican reptiles and amphibians. Kansas Univ. Sci. Buil., vol. 33(8), pp. 313-380. 1950b. An annotated checklist and key to the reptiles of Mexico exclusive of the snakes. Bull. U.S. natl. Mus., No. 199, pp. i-iv, 1-253. STRAUCH, A. 1862. Chelonische Studien mit besonderer Beziehung auf die Schildkrétensammlung der kaiserlichen Academie der Wissenschaften zu St. Petersburg. Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Petersbourg, (7) vol. 5 (7), pp. 1-196, pl. 1. 1865. Die Vertheilung der Schildkréten iiber den Erdball. Ein zoo- geographischer Versuch. Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Petersbourg, (7) vol. 8 (13), pp. 1-207. WERLER, J.E. & SMITH, H.M. 1952. Notes on a collection of reptiles and amphibians from Mexico, 1951-1952. Texas J. Sci., vol. 4(4), pp. 551- 573. figs. 1-23. WERMUTH, H. & MERTENS, R. 1961. Schildkréten, Krokodile, Briickenechsen. Jena, Fischer. xxvi, 422 pp., 270 figs. 1977. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Testudines, Croco- dylia, Rhynchocephalia. Das Tierreich, No. 100, pp. i-xxvii, 1-177. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 CHROMIS CUVIER IN DESMAREST, 1814 (OSTEICHTHYES, PERCIFORMES, POMACENTRIDAE): PROPOSAL TO PLACE ON OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY, AND THAT GENERIC NAMES ENDING IN -CHROMIS BE RULED TO BE MASCULINE. Z.N.(S.)2329 By Reeve M. Bailey (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.), C. Richard Robins (School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) & P. Humphry Greenwood (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) The history of the generic name Chromis has been reviewed by Emery, 1975, who concluded that: (1) Chromis dates from Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814, p. 88 (erroneously spelled Desmarets throughout); (2) The type species of Chromis is Sparus chromis Linnaeus, 1758, p. 280 by original designation; (3) Chromis is a name of variable gender, although the majority of authors have regarded it as masculine; (4) Cuvier, 1815, by inclusion of the species castanea and nilotica, considered Chromis to be feminine; (5) This gender applies only to Chromis; the gender of all other generic names ending in -chromis should be deter- mined individually. 2. We agree with the correctness of Emery’s review of the problem except for a minor notation that the Committee on Names of Fishes of the American Fisheries Society treated Chromis as feminine in its 1960 edition and as masculine in its 1970 edition (Bailey et al., 1960, 1970). Actually the committee was inconsis- tent in 1960, using cyanea and multilineata (feminine) but insolatus (masculine) for included species with adjectival endings, the last a past participle correctly treated as adjectival. Emery, 1975, p. 81, commented that although we and others agreed with the technical correctness of his position, we did not agree with his suggested course of action. 4. The problem stems not only from the current confusion on the gender of Chromis but from the wide use in ichthyology of generic names ending in -chromis, the seeming logic that all should have the same gender, and the fact that these genera have been over- whelmingly treated as masculine. Recently, Kullander, 1977, des- cribed Papiliochromis and designated its gender as feminine. This name is a junior synonym of Microgeophagus Axelrod according to Robins & Bailey (in press). Thus, without a specific uniform ruling by the Commission on all names ending in -chromis, we may antici- Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 37, part 4, December 1980 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature pate varied use in the future and needless difficulty for authors and editors alike. Cichlids are important aquarium fishes and are in- creasingly used as behavioural and experimental fishes. Moreover, there are many undescribed species and the adjectival ending accorded each new species in a genus ending in -chromis will vary with each author’s view. Pomacentrids are popular with marine aquarists and they also are widely studied and reported on by etho- logists. A non-exhaustive search of ichthyological literature reveals numerous generic names ending in -chromis (Table 1). 5. In disagreement with Emery, we believe that for purposes of zoological nomenclature Chromis should be treated as masculine: (1) classical dictionaries vary in citing the gender of chromis (chromios), a sea fish, as masculine or feminine. In discussing this point with Dr. H.D. Cameron, Chair- man of the Department of Classical Studies, University of Michigan, he assures us that there is no sure way to demonstrate the correct gender of Greek Chromis in antiquity, suggesting that this is a practical matter in modern zoology to be resolved in the most reasonable way. This we visualize as concordance with the rules and/or prevailing use. (2) Chromis is commonly (e.g. Jordan, 1917, p. 93) cited as dating from Cuvier, 1815, wherein Sparus chromis Linnaeus was listed as type. Emery (op. cit.) commen- ted that Cuvier included also castanea and nilotica, thus indicating his selection of feminine gender. (3) Nevertheless, as mentioned above and as was stated by Emery, 1975, the genus Chromis was originally pro- posed by Cuvier in Desmarest, 1814. We repeat the quotation given by Emery from the work of Desmarest: eB le Petit Castagneau, appelé Sparus chromis par tous les auteurs, qui doit devenir le type d’un nouveau genre nommeé Chromis .... Emery believed that this use ‘was in non-binomial nomenclature’. We cannot agree with this interpretation. Although only one species was men- tioned in Desmarest’s title, the body of the text includes as species of Chromis, Chromis castanea, Labrus niloticus (also mentioned as Chromis nilotica), and Labrus punctatus. (4) In the original proposal (1814) no statement of gender for Chromis was given, although the use of C. castanea and C. nilotica would indicate feminine gender, as argued by Emery. Subsequently Cuvier was inconsistent, perhaps unconcerned about the ending. (5) (6) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 The prevalent treatment of Chromis in ichthyological literature has been as masculine, as concluded also by Emery. A sampling of general works, many of which serve as guides to nomenclatural use, includes the following: masculine masculine or feminine feminine Beaufort, L.F.de, Allen, G.R., 1975 Mago-Leccia, F., 1940 1970 Bini, G., 1968 Bohlke, J.E. & Chaplin, C.C.G., 1968 Blanche, J., Randall, J.E., 1968 Cadenat, J. & Stauch, A., 1970. Fowler, H.W., 1928 & Bean, B.A., 1928 Grant, E.M., 1978 Herre, A.W., 1953 Jordan, D.S. & Evermann, B.W., 1898 Marshall, T.C., 1964 Meek, S.E. & Hildebrand, S.F., 1925 Metzelaar, J., 1919 Monod, Th., 1973 Munro, I.S.R., 1955, 1967 Parr, A.E., 1930 Shiino, S.M., 1976 Smith, J.L.B., 1965 —_ & Smith, M.M. 1969 Woods, L.P. & Schultz, L.P. 1960 Among works sampled, only those by Allen, Bohlke & Chaplin, Mago-Leccia, and Randall used Chromis in the feminine, whether or not consistently. Likely all except Allen followed Bailey et al., 1960, a usage reversed by Bailey et al., 1970. Allen anticipated Emery in treating Chromis as feminine, but inadvertently retained mascu- line endings for C. margaritifer and C. verater. Emery contends (op. cit.) that a change from customary gender for Chromis to feminine is wholly independent of the gender of other names ending in -chromis. Such 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature inconsistency, however, would open the way to general confusion. Table | lists more than 70 such names, about 50 of which denote currently accepted genera. A few others are preoccupied or invalid emendations. Some are known to us to be currently regarded as generic syno- nyms, still others are probably unacceptable, but many of these are available nomenclaturally. There are 57 such genera in the family CICHLIDAE and it is likely that more will be proposed. Many are monotypic or oligotypic and few names are adjectives. Authors rarely have indicated gender. Many additional species remain to be described in these genera. To our knowledge among all of these only Papiliochromis was stated to be or treated as feminine when proposed and this probably resulted from the author’s familiarity with Emery’s paper. (The single known species is a patronym in the genitive; this genus is considered to be a junior synonym of Microgeophagus by Robins & Bailey, in press.) As species with adjectival names are added, gender will be determined haphazardly. And if species are shifted between genera with the same ending but different gender, the results will be chaotic. With few exceptions -chromis names are treated as masculine. Should Chromis be different? To us common sense dictates uniformity in treatment of such combining words or suffixes. Thus, we applaud the recent use of its plenary powers by the Commission to designate all names ending in -ops as masculine (1974, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 31(1), pp. 81-83). The Commission is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule (a) that the gender of Chromis Cuvier, in Desmarest, 1814, is masculine; (b) that the gender of all generic names ending in -chromis is masculine; (2) to place the generic name Chromis Cuvier, in Desmarest, 1814 (gender, by the ruling given under the plenary powers in (1) above, masculine) type- species, by original designation, Sparus chromis Linnaeus, 1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name chromis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sparus chromis Linnaeus (specific name of type-species of Chromis Cuvier, 1814) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 REFERENCES ALLEN, G.R. 1975. Damselfishes of the south seas. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, N.J., pp. 1-240. BAILEY, R.M., FITCH, J.E., HERALD, E.S., LACHNER, E.A., LINDSEY, C.C., ROBINS, C.R. & SCOTT, W.B. 1970. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada (third edition). Am. Fish. Soc., Spec. Publ. No. 6: 1-150. LACHNER, E.A., LINDSEY, C.C., ROBINS, C.R., ROEDEL, P.M., SCOTT, W.B. & WOODS, L.P. 1960. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada (second edition). Am. Fish. Soc., Spec. Publ. No. 2: 1-102. BEAUFORT, L.F. de 1940. The Fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago, VIII: Percomorphi(cont.), Cirrhitoidea, Labriformes,Pomacentriformes. E.J. Brill, Leiden, pp. 1-508. BINI, G. 1968. Atlante dei pesci delle coste Italiane. Vol. 5. Osteitti: Perci- formi (Percoidei). Mondo Sommerso, Rome, pp. 1-175. BLACHE, J., CADENAT, J. & STAUCH, A. 1970. Clés de détermination des poissons de mer signalés dans |’Atlantique oriental. Faune Tropicale, we vol. XVIII: ORSTOM, Paris, pp. 1-479. BOHLKE, J.E. & CHAPLIN, C.C.G. 1968. Fishes of the Bahamas and Adjacent Tropical Waters. Livingston Publ. Co., Wynnewood, Pa., pp. 1-771. CUVIER, G. 1815. Suite des observations et recherches critiques sur differents poissons de la Mediterranée, et 4 leur occasion sur les poissons d’autres mers, plus ou moins liés avex eux. Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, vol. 1: 353-63. DESMAREST, A.G. 1814. VI° mémoire. Sur le petit castagneau, appelé Sparus chromis par tous les auteurs, qui doit devenir le type d’un nouveau genre nommeé Chromis, et appartenant a la famille des Labres. Bull. Sci. Soc. Philom. Paris (3) vol. 1: 88-89. EMERY, A.R. 1975. Chromis Cuvier, 1814: the correct gender. Copeia 1975(3): 579-82. FOWLER, H.W. 1928. The fishes of Oceania. Mem. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., Honolulu, vol. 10: 1-540. & BEAN, B.A. 1928. Contributions to the Biology of the Philippine Archipelago and Adjacent Regions: The Fishes of the Families Poma- centridae, Labridae, and Callyodontidae, collected by the United States Bureau of Fisheries Steamer “‘Albatross”, chiefly in Philippine Seas and adjacent waters. Bull. U.S. natl. Mus., vol. 100, 7: 1-525. GRANT, E.M. 1978. Guide to Fishes. Dept. Harbours & Marine, Brisbane, Queensland, pp. 1-768. GREENWOOD, P.H. 1979. Towards a phyletic classification of the ‘genus’ Haplochromis (Pisces, Chichlidae) and related taxa. Part I. Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool. ser.) vol. 35(4): 265-322. HERRE, A.W. 1953. Check List of Philippine Fishes. U.S. Dept. Int. Fish & Wildlife Serv. Res. Rep. 20, pp. 1-975. JORDAN, D.S. 1917. The genera of fishes. Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. Publ., Univ. Ser. No. 27. & EVERMANN, B.W. 1898. The Fishes of North and Middle America. Bull. U.S. nati. Mus. No. 47, Pt. 2, pp. 1241-2183. 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature KULLANDER, S.W. 1977. Papiliochromis gen.n., a new genus of South American cichlid fish (Teleostei, Perciformes). Zool. Scripta vol. 6: 25344. LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, vol. 1. MAGO-LECCIA, P. 1970. Lista de los Peces de Venezuela, incluyendo un estudio preliminar sobre la ictiogeografia del pais. Min. de Agr. y Cria, Nac’l. de Pesca, Caracas, pp. 1-283. MARSHALL, T.C. 1964. Fishes of the Great Barrier Reef and Coastal Waters of Queensland. Angus & Robertson, Sydney, pp. 1-566. MEEK, S.E. & HILDEBRAND, S.F. 1925. The Marine Fishes of Panama, Part II. Field Mus. nat. Hist. Publ. No. 226, Zool. Ser. vol. 15, pp. 331-707. METZELAAR, J. 1919. Over Tropisch Atlantische visschen ...... A.H. Kruyt, Amsterdam, pp. 1-314. MONOD, Th. 1973. Pomacentridae. In: Check-list of the Fishes of the North Eastern Atlantic and of the Mediterranean. J.C. Hureau and Th. Monod, eds. U.N. Ed., Sci., Cult. Org., Paris, pp. 424-5. MUNRO, I.S.R. 1955. The Marine and Fresh Water Fishes of Ceylon. Dept. External Affairs, Canberra, pp. 1-351. — 1967. The Fishes of New Guinea. Dept. Agr., Stock & Fish., New Guinea, pp. 1-651. PARR, A.E. 1930. Teleostean shore and shallow-water fishes from the Bahamas and Turks Island. Jn: Scientific results of the third oceanographic expedition of the ‘Pawnee’, 1927: Fishes. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll., Vol. 3, Art. IV: 1-41. RANDALL, J.E. 1968. Caribbean Reef Fishes. T.F.H. Publ., Inc., New Jersey, pp. 1-318. SHIINO, SUEO M. 1976. List of common names of fishes of the world, those prevailing among English-speaking nations. Sci. Rep. of Shima Marine- land, Japan, 4: 1-262. SMITH, J.L.B. 1965. The Sea Fishes of Southern Africa. Central News Agency, Ltd., South Africa, pp. 1-580. & SMITH, M.M. 1969. The Fishes of Seychelles. J.L.B. Smith Inst. Ichth., Grahamstown, S. Africa, pp. 1-223. SPRINGER, V.G., SMITH, C.L. & FRASER, T.H. 1977. Anisochromis straussi, a new species of protogynous hermaphroditic fish, and synonymy of Anisochromidae, Pseudoplesiopidae, and Pseudochromidae. Smithson. Contr. Zool., No. 252: i-iii, 1-15. WOODS, LOREN P. & SCHULTZ, LEONARD P. 1960. Family Pomacentridae: Damselfishes. In, Fishes of the Marshall and Marianas Islands. Bull. U.S. natl. Mus., 202 (vol. 2): 47-120. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 TABLE 1 The genus Chromis and some other fish genera ending in -chromis. The approximate number of species of each in parentheses.’ POMACENTRIDAE Acanthochromis Gill, 1863 (1) Actinochromis Bleeker, 1877 (1) Belochromis Fowler, 1944 (1) Centrochromis Norman, 1922 (= Glyphisodon) Chromis Cuvier, 1814 (in Desmarest, 1814) (50+) Dorychromis Fowler and Bean, 1928 (= Chromis) Hoplochromis Fowler, 1918 (= Chromis) Lepicephalochromis Fowler, 1943 (= Chromis) Lepidochromis Fowler & Bean, 1928 (= Chromis) Pellochromis Fowler & Bean, 1928 (= Dascyllus) Pomachromis Allen & Randall, 1974 (4) Pycnochromis Fowler, 1941 (= Chromis) Serrichromis Fowler, 1943 (1) Siphonochromis Fowler, 1946 (= Chromis) Thrissochromis Fowler, 1941 (1) PSEUDOCHROMIDAE (including Anisochromidae; see Springer, Smith, and Fraser, 1977) Anisochromis J.L.B. Smith, 1954 (2) Leptochromis Bleeker, 1875 (= Pseudochromis) ’ Loxopseudochromis Fowler, 1934 - (1) Nematochromis Weber, 1913 (1) Opsipseudochromis Fowler, 1934 (1) Pseudochromis Ruppell, 1835 many POMATOMIDAE Chromis Gronow, 1854 (= preoccupied) CICHLIDAE Aristochromis Trewavas, 1935 (1) Astatochromis Pellegrin, 1905 (2) Astatoreochromis Pellegrin, 1904 (3) Boulengerochromis Pellegrin, 1904 (1) Callochromis Regan, 1920 (2) Chalinochromis Poll, 1974 (1) Champsochromis Boulenger, 1916 (= Cyrtocara Boulenger; see Greenwood, 1979) Chilochromis Boulenger, 1902 (1) Chromis Cuvier, 1817 (in part = Tilapia) Chromis (Cuvier) Gunther, 1872 (= Tilapia) 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Ctenochromis Pfeffer, 1893 Cyathochromis Trewavas, 1935 Cy prichromis Scheuermann, 1977 Genyochromis Trewavas, 1935 Gephyrochromis Boulenger, 1901 Gobiochromis Poll, 1939 Haplochromis Hilgendorf, 1888 Hemichromis Peters, 1857 Hemihaplochromis Wickler, 1963 (= Pseudocrenilabrus) Heterochromis Regan, 1922 Julidochromis Boulenger, 1898 Labidochromis Trewavas, 1935 Labrochromis Regan, 1920 (= Haplochromis, s.1.) Labrochromis Daget, 1952 (preoccupied) Leptochromis Regan, 1920 (preoccupied) Lichnochromis Trewavas, 1935 Limnochromis Regan, 1920 Lipochromis Regan, 1920 (= Haplochromis, s.1.) Melanochromis Trewavas, 1935 Mylochromis Regan, 1920 (= Haplochromis, s.1.) Nannochromis (improper emendation for Nanochromis) auctorum Nanochromis Pellegrin, 1904 Neochromis Regan, 1920 (= Haplochromis, s.1.) Ophthalmochromis Poll & Matthes, 1962 Oreochromis Gunther, 1889 (= Tilapia) Orthochromis Greenwood, 1954 Papiliochromis Kullander, 1977 (= Microgeophagus Axelrod) Parachromis Agassiz, 1856 (= Cichlasoma) Parachromis Regan, 1922 (preoccupied) Paralabiodochromis Greenwood, 1956 Pelmatochromis Steindachner, 1894 (1) (3) Pelvicachromis Thys van den Audenaerde, 1968 (=subgenus of Pelmatochromis) Petrochromis Boulenger, 1898 Pharyngochromis Greenwood, 1979 Pterochromis Trewavas, 1973 Ptychochromis Steindachner, 1880 Reganochromis Whitley, 1929 (replacement for Leptochromis Regan) Rhamphochromis Regan, 1921 Rheohaplochromis Thys van den Audenaerde, 1963 (= Orthochromis) Sargochromis Regan, 1920 (= subgenus of Serranochromis) Serranochromis Regan, 1920 Simochromis Boulenger, 1898 Telmatochromis Boulenger, 1898 Thoracochromis Greenwood, 1979 Triglachromis Poll & Thys van den Audenaerde, 1974 Tylochromis Regan, 1920 Xenochromis Boulenger, 1898 (= Perissodus) (3) (17) (4) (S) (14) (1) (8) 1 We have indicated synonymies where dictated by recent studies but we Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 cannot attest to the correctness of these allocations. The classification of cichlid fishes in particular is unstable and authors vary in according generic or subgeneric ranking to various of these taxa. In recent years approximately 300 species (the majority living in Malawi [Nyasa] , Victoria, and adjacent lakes) have been placed in the genus Haplo- chromis (sensu lato). Greenwood (1979) has restricted the genus to only five species from Lakes Victoria, Edward, George, Nabugabo, and Kivu. Many species have been transferred to other genera, especially the large assemblage of Malawi species assigned tentatively to Cyrtocara, but until reclassification is complete many species are retained temporarily in Haplochromis (s.1). Some genera listed as synonyms in this table will be resurrected. 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature TICHOGONIA ROSSMAESSLER, 1835 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA): CLOSURE OF CASE. Z.N.(S) 1702 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In August 1965 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 22, p. 206) Mr Joshua L. Baily, Jr. apriued for the suppression of the generic name Tichogonia Rossmaessler, 1835, an objective synonym of Dreissena van Beneden, 1835. (The name was misspelt ‘Trichogonia’ in the application; this was corrected on p. 376 of the same volume.) Dreissena had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the ruling in Opinion 351 (not Opinion 782, as stated by Mr Baily). Mr David Heppell has pointed out to me that Dreissena van Beneden was published in January 1835 (fide Kennard & Woodward, 1926, Synonymy of the British non-Marine Mollusca, p. 295), whereas the Vorwort of Rossmaessler’s work is dated April 1835. Tichogonia is therefore clearly junior to Dreissena, and there is no need for the Commission to take any action on it. (The ruling in Opinion 351 gave Dreissena the status of a justified emendation of Driessena van Beneden, 1835; it consequently takes the same date and authorship.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 257 INDEX TO AUTHORS Page Page Ansell, W:H.-F:; sir.) ay. - 152 TeauterenyPs } bianca: 159 epler, JM se). a0 or Ay 240 Batley ReMi seis ce sk 0 247 Lemche, H. (the late). . 23 Balk. .CRivex?dactbera. 62 Tandberg) D:Rerieziticte 51 Bayer, EsMis:.ereelt cece 228 Lochhead: Hi. twa tee 223 Bavily,,,.J:A. E20.) aes 165 LoofpPiAcAwin 3 vejecas 34 Becker, jE:Gas¥. ostesi: 49 ienson. C!Wa gas sictas 136 , Bistrom,O. ........ 169 Melville, R.V. REET, eae Bromley, RiGee ito. sxc us 6 ’ ieee s2Us Brooke, R.K........ 135 Muzik, K.M......... 228 Callomon, J.H....... 109 Nye, LW.B. 2.2.2... 12,40,186 Cernohorsky, W.O. ... 148,149 oo 4 sseeiche ile aa Cus TET eel 176 Canveien, TEBateah «4 46 TOWERS NET te oc ae 22 Cowan. C.F rica... ¢ sock 134,167 F PITT y B Gret o on ere 48 Dall’ Asta, Usn.<.3.. = seed 47 Day... JéHiyxeeaesLabene 135 Ricesw):Wevasitee. 693 25: 30 Raotte hy MOE: sei.93!) 2 48 Ebert, Gristaonsuiwit. 4 47 RopinssG@sRewels . seek 247 Eisenmann, E........ 4 Ernst, C.H.’ 233 Silfverberg, H.. .. 2... 57,67,195 Bittkan Beye 21 Smithgall. Mature. ite ‘nea Fletcher, D.S. ...... 40 ; Pinsich! FT. °°. 3° 6 SmithsRiBboW) . oro 53,1 ec Greenwood, P.H...... 247 Starobogatov, Y.I..... 5 Streyan) HdaGas sus 173 Maman; De: eheraer 145 Stubblefield, C.J... ... 62 Hirvenoja,M........ 21 Sublette) JsBao stew 24 Hoffrichter,O....... 23 Sublette; Maks wt." 24 Holthuis, L.B........ 133 Sweet, MeHewmn«.. Gass 34 Howden, H.F........ 191 Huddleston, R.W. .... 141,145 Thomasy A. Te .nkiere 122 EhompsonyT.ey . 20rae 67 MMOS I ED 5 ous ops go asad sigs 47,163 Turkay,M.woeds eStats 133 Kennedy,G.L....... 114 Weller, J.M. (the late). . 62 Kerzhner,I.M. ...... 5 WhitesRIE. 6.26400 119 hinman; KB... . 2. oss 30 Watlianas RB access, =i 135.137 Kristensen, N.P. ..... © 154,156 Wioltersis iB. wcciseiciic Paus 136 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Opinion 1147 Status, for the purposes of type fixations, of the remains of Chironomid Larvae (Insecta, Diptera) provided by Thienemann to Kieffer for the description of new species based on the adults'reared \fromthosellarvae .: 0%... 2... ss ese suede By 1148 Stabilisation of the generic name Orchelimum Audinet-Serville, 1838 and the specific name Orchelimum vulgare Harris, 1841, (Insecta, Coleoptera) by use of the plenary powers ........ 1149 Blanus Wagler, 1830, and Amphisbaena cinerea Vandelli, 1797 (Reptilia Squamata) conserved 22)... . 36 wuue ote 1150 Chilodus Muller & Troschel, 1844, and Caenotropus Guenther, 1864 (Pisces) placed on the Official List ............... ETS Lingulops Hall, 1872 (Brachiopoda) conserved ........... 1152 Ophiura Lamarck, 1801 and Ophioderma Muller & Troschel, 1840 (Ophiuroidea): ruling on application of these names .. . 1153. Galaxias platei Steindachner, 1898, given nomenclatural precedence over Galaxias delfini Philippi, 1895 (Pisces) by the use-of the plenary-nowers YS PMID S SSS rs Oo. Pie 1154 Drupella Thiele, 1925 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): designation of a type species by the use of the plenary powers .......... 1155 Saperda inornata Say, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): designation of a neotype by the use of the plenary powers ........... 1156 Terebra variegata Gray, 1834 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) conserved by the.use oftthe plenanipowers ... 2... sees ee ees 1157 Sphex viatica [sic] Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): designation of lectotype’. . 2... Be. . sss 5 3 eS ee RENE 1158 Litomosa viteae ruled under the plenary powers to be the correct original spelling of Litomosa wite Krepkogorskaya, MOSS CINEMIaLOU a) te) vo eee ess kp wees 2 cess cues 6: mpeg 1159 Littorina (Mollusca, Gastropoda): author and date of this generic name, and type species of this nominal genus determined by use of the plenary powers .............. 1160 Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758 and related species (Insecta, Diptera): stabilisation by the use of the plenary powers ..... 1161 Chaitophorus C.L. Koch, 1854 (Insecta, Hemiptera): designat- ion of a type species by use of the plenary powers ........ Direction 108 Correction of Name No. 2087 in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: for Murex striata Gmelin, 1791, read Voluta striata Gmelin, 1791 ....... pI ie ine testo 4a. ta ts ec Nahe Mode Page —————EE— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 37. Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Blanus Wagler, 1830 Littorina Férussac, 1822 Caenotropus Guenther, 1864 Ophioderma Miller & Troschel, 1840 Chaitophorus C.L. Koch, 1854 Ophiura Lamarck, 1801 Chilodus Muller & Troschel, 1844 Orchelimum Audinet-Serville, 1838 Drupella Thiele, 1925 Saperda Fabricius, 1775 Lingulops Hall, 1872 Tipula Linnaeus, 1758 Official List of Specific Names in Zoology cinerea, Amphisbaena, Vandelli, 1797 platei, Galaxias, Steindachner, 1898 cornus, Drupa, Roeding, 1798 punctatus, Chilodus, Muller & czizeki, Tipula, de Jong, 1925 Troschel, 1844 delfini, Galaxias, Philippi, 1895 scalaris, Cerambyx, Linnaeus, 1758 inornata, Saperda, Say, 1824 striata, Voluta, Gmelin, 1791 labyrinthicus, Microdus, Kner, 1858 subcunctans, Tipula, Alexander, 1921 leucomelas, Chaitophorus, C.L. Koch, variegata, Terebra, Gray,25 November, 1854 1834 littoreus, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758 viaticus, Sphex, Linnaeus, 1758 [as longicauda, Asterias, Retzius, 1805 viatica | oleracea, Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758 viteae, Litomosa, Krepkogorskaya, 1933 ophiura, Asterias, Linnaeus, 1758 vulgare, Orchelimum, Harris, 1841 paludosa, Tipula, Meigen, 1830 whitfieldi, Lingulops, Hall, 1872 Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology OPHIODERMATIDAE Ljungman, 1867 TIPULIDAE Latreille, [1802] OPHIURIDAE Muller & Troschel, 1840 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Lingulops Hall, 1871 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology africana, Terebra, Griffith & Pidgeon, vite, Litosoma, Skrjabin & late 1833-early 1834 Shikhobalova 1945 cuticulare, Orchelimum, Audinet- vitei, Litosoma, Sassuchin, Tiflow & Serville, 1838 Schulz, 1935 fimbriata, Tipula, Meigen, 1818 wite, Litomosa, Krepkogorskaya, glaberrimum, Xiphidium, Burmeister, 1933 1838 witei, Litosoma, McIntosh & McIntosh, paludosa, Tipula, Fabricius, 1794 1935 reticulata, Amphisbaena, C.P. Thunberg, 1787 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology Tipulariae Latreille [1802] 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INDEX TO KEY NAMES Page abbreviatella, Trichopteryx, Heer, 184latse®. 22 ee Sele 169 acuta, Pleurocerd: | Ratinesque, bean. SPSS 2h Pees? PES Pa 5 dequalicaudaCyormisp Blyth, Testi ;. . : .. . R ee ae 136 africana, Terebra, Griffith & Pidgeon [late 1833-early 1834] ..... 94 albida: Euliniene; Latreille She Aw: Ra TA SYP SSE 224 andrenaeformis; Sesia; Laspeyres; 1801! .. 2. 2 aS 156 anthraciniformis, Sphinx, Esper;1798 2 2 0 Oo OCR Sed. 156 antviqua, Phataena, Vannaeus: U1 58°. SOR es oe SI ae 41 apterum, Ptilium, Guérin-Méneville, 1839 .................. 169 Artemesia Latrenle, S17) 8: 2S ee SS A eats ae es 223 ArtemiaeachWel 9 sieaie.s - Seitias . PAYA. AibanY serondeinee 223 ArtemisussLamarck wel § * yf sis res SS SRL Sa iboe Ss cei 223 Aitechna Chevrolat, Vase? iethay gy. SS SS eee ae 57 AtiyreussMacleay stags s. aacieee. . oo. VRE Beers ees 191 australicat Calamoecia’ Sars 1908 Ger. 2... . BRAT. ek ee 165 dustraliss Galamoecia,SearleA9UMS a... BREE SSR ROP ae 165 bang, Piychoparia’, Walcott, (SU... . es ee es eee eee 62 betulina: AphisnWalkers US52" sine... Best ese tet 173 bidens, Physeter, Sowerby, 1804.18... COT. 2s PA eves 3A bifurcatus, Athyreus, Macleay, 1819. ..........2 2800) 20088 191 Blanus, Wagler, 1830 (Opinion 1149) ..................... 69 bruxellense, Bembidion, Wesmael, 1835 ................-.- 195 Caenotropus Guenther, 1864 (Opinion 1150) ............... 72 collide Aphis stueoudaia, VOUS: 2 . crsna: 2.5 cn ete ert oare 173 CONCIOGTUL, OPTA. WCCCHe USO Te tee eo dons shee = ops’ > 6 agaecas Cer ie 163 CaSlANCUS, HATIMINIUS. PamMaite: VOS2 “oo: tore = «ses tas, «swe 3 ee 49 citaspila. Byiyse GuTinet OSD) Py «tee ak tn 2 eset oe aks 240 ceratophthalmus, Phacops, Goldfuss, 1843 ................. 122 Chaitophorus C.L. Koch, 1854 (Opinion 1161) .............. 221 Chenielysmeatinesque, (632 ee en ts ee es ee eee 233 Chilodus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Opinion 1150) ............ phe Chromis, Gavierin Desmiarest, 1814 (PSPS ree ae 247 chromis, Sparus; Vaunasuseisees =. 2°. P PP PPD ROS. ea. 247 GhrysolinaMotschulbkysts60 290s x... Tre eo. a7 Cipysomela Linnaeus Chip so BU «os « ss 2c 2, ssn 8 Sats iy eee aif; CRURNEIA WAC I OED SOS Je AE! OD ORS ECL Ee 62 cinctipennisA ltica’ Chevrolat, toss oe ee ee 3 kee ee es ee ee 119 Cifictipennis- Lepunotarsa, Chevrolat; 1837 °.-.. 0. 5%. fn ca “oo ne 119 cinerea, Amphisbaena, Vandelli, 1797 (Opinion 1149).......... 69 Clavifrons. Catpmene, Dalman, 1827 <6. e056 wet ee ee = ae 122 econcava, Davila, Distant, VE9S Ss. cron segs oes sy hee ss 37 consanguineus: Davils, Wistant, VSOS. 6 2 osc jeys 0 4 ose se on eee ii cornus, Drupa, Roeding, 1798 (Opinion 1154) .............. 85 crassicaudatus, Galago, Geoffroy, 1812° ... 2. ..' ss | See 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Grassale: iTaxostomapBaird wiSS8.... 60 PI Le 3 IE AM cuticulare, Orchelimum, Audinet-Serville, 1838 (Opinon 1148).... Gyphispis Burmeister, 1843 «+ o-oo ee ee ne od Fs POWER? Cerioniciopus AngelinelBS4S |. 0 een ns PERL RE. czizeki, Tipula, de Jong, 1925 (Opinion 1160) ............... darwinii, Pholas, G.B. Sowerby, II, 1849 ................... Basychira Hiibner; [1809] | .- .--.- ee PPS CAVE PD. DASYCHIRIDAE Packard, 1864+ )-.- > Seb BPOWRIG LO) TRAV ME. GAG VSS Se oe LN FRI ooh om 0 ah oe a PD BEN RIOD avila Distant, PlVOGS yy i seater om oe om ok a ot oth oh tahoe ek ee ee delfini, Galaxias, Philippi, 1895 (Opinion 1153) .............. aijpractumOtariony Zenker {S33 0.7..$529.4. SR) AOL ORR, dipsacea, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1767 ...............22-005. daria Antilope Ogilby, 1837 .. 5081. macs. cominochord t3iiol Dreissena'van Beneden,.1VS35) «.-.- 6. POL ARIE AS hk Drupella Thiele, 1925 (Opinion 1154) .................... Bdwardsiarde’Quatrefages, S41) ...e.6- etec ene eee ea we ee EDWARDSHIIDAB Andres; 1881 ...... S81. OPS LOM wenn tose elata, Purpura, Blainville, 1832 (Opinion 1154) .............. Malnnene Latrewlenl SPOR A.J. TUNG. 3S os ee Nae oS E SE A. expansa, Brunella, Sars, 1912 «.. <1...» 0.0. tees 6 SBI ASS jakir, Belostoma, Gistel, [1847]? ... 328. cmeell Baek ale fimbriata, Tipula, Meigen, 1818 (Opinion 1160) .............. fasea"Ghermes, Zetterstedt, W828 6 0) 6 oa a oo EBS RIO MS fusca, Psylla, Geoffroy, 1785 in Fourcroy,1785.............. PCE L US Lys LOS Vee oo ne Oe eee Mae ae ee cers: glaberrimum, Xiphidium, Burmeister, 1838 (Opinion 1148) ...... PTS MAC ANTISE RO ONG a aot se fiat s s ape tkere ste sca eas tne Gane Teste eet LS ae’ fs es Are ee Oe RAINOGUME ANGEL. USD0. 5.2. ig Mail Sead aoe Ste TS giiius us) 6). 8m ia Pius PAM AIC | CNS le wen i ae ee os sates e ch ee 2 MeOH AP BOISGUUdle a2 o.oo SoS ee tes 2 a nee oe oes EVO OciscnnciMciolG. «oe oe ee ee alee eee REC ESRI EE Unt Ri at OMA Ds ceo 0-28 oivage aud (6 eh io) wie) ma pevactl Feningiara st 1ase 0 Co ee ee MPIVES: |CULOISOING: Data G52 cates flo ol eee ne ee ee MATRIDES. GeCOLCInis. Lamarck SUG oof 0 foci eca se Sees eee inornata, Saperda, Say, 1824 (Opinion 1155)................ IOTONCHIDAG latrrapur 1O0G'o 8. a. , SUS BSN eS ie tess TOTONCHINAP Goodey 51953 FO) ee tS eee ethane ee labyrinthicus, Microdus, Kner, 1858 (Opinion 1150)........... PIN DIrOCADETa INGUE: AGSG 2 tt eae ne ee oe at ee ete orate 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature aria Schrank, 1802...,- S32 AEE. NOeRt tic dG: Aer LARIIDAE Newman, )(4832)0) 228 & .ollivan®-tosibu A. soaerdladarts Leptinotarsa Chevrolat, 1837....:....,..-,..-.-.-,-.>,-,+ CRE L seherermse Béptinotars: “Sthly IBS58". «ing 5 a4. «+, .,<.-,.. BEB2 plese we Bethocerus Mays. USS3cnccsees. ) HOBLE ankiet?) 2024 anol 23). shoe leucomelas, Chaitophorus, C.L.Koch, 1854 (Opinion 1161)....... leucostoma; Voluta;Gmelin, 1791.0... -2084 4B wdexwne. 8. O- avier limatulaAcmaea, Carpenter, 864... ........, 6. «> EROS) eed Bbingulops Hall, 1872,(Opinion 1.151): .. .......- Bae . bee dae A HAGLS EIPARIDAE Boisduval.( 1834), . 292... <, «, 5s. <0. ,6.2, 0, +50, 00 eeysh ed om Biparis,Ochsenheimer (1810) soe. 3... ops) +. occ pec -oe. «+, BORE Sie littoreus, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1159).............. Littorina Férussac, 1822 (Opinion 1159). ................5. longicauda, Asterias, Retzius, 1805 (Opinion 1152)............ longicaudatoides, Prodorylaimus, Altherr, 1968 .............. longicaudatus, Dorylaimus, Butschli, 1874.................. Epmantria Hubner, (1619). ................. (@211.noiniqO) 2206 oteit LYMANT REDAE.Hanipson [il§93) ww... so. oie es oi lapel See atats Macrocephalites (Sutner MS) Zittel, 1884 .................. macrocephalus, Ammonites, Schlotheim, 1813 ............... iidmillata; Patella; Reeve plS55 0% ., 0.52. scceds sss overs cs SPRL obleetal inelanarius, Pterostichus, Mligers 1798... ...:......... L$ 24. 2182 .. elves MeliicaLamonroun, Wal Dicks) Papi. ess 6. See6 50 eae Bed ape Melithaea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857.................-. Meélitodes. A.E-Verrill, 1864... $9 dbioadeisian®.) 3131 .neaiol. sluall iMesoplodon Gervais,.1850.. .. s,s ... SER1. sbateris®. aon Micropteron Eschricht, 1849 o32%.1...ncemned 2: 240 f wrovtiaen at MikrapierpmEschricht S40 ¢.. ci ee Se ek ee he we wee es monacha: Phalaena: Lannaeuss1758..... 2... 2 << s BORE cusnatd < MORPHIDAE, Newmans Bu. LS34ra cer ag « onsetesrmestls suasshe decd © aes MORPHIEES Newmangh a wSo4 . . 6 5. . 2.. . s 6% SE Se) qucceunsegaeeies MORPHOIDES Agassiz 1 S4 7h jess cheese ee ee oo. eee Sten iNenhanes Phomsons '8598. oc sc ow oc este wi Belo ea OS wr endhe wes Wetastoma Carpenter.) 864 «) 374.42 a) siieycrone b oN eyes TORT Mave teovent- Nettastomella.Carpenter, L865: & (ge. 6s 5 2 EE + faheepiaeyatett RIZE Modus Waclet.:l 830 enacts 39RR ss soe oes, 2 RIOT seach oblongus, Pleurocerus, Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824........... Gehracea Usis. tannaens, 1767 ...¢. 2:5... ss. 1 OEE amtt ieee oecnnced, Isis, TANNACHS ALTOS). 2 O44 os... RARE Seas ehep F aus ddoreta. festudo,.Latretiler| SOlss stan. ce Hak ee ee oleracea, Tipula, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1160) ............. “On the turtles of the United States’’, Rafinesque, 1822......... Ophioderma Miller & Troschel, 1840 (Opinion 1152) .......... OPHIODERMATIDAE Ljungman, 1867 (Opinion 1152) ........ OphiuraiLamarek, 1801 (Qpinion.<1152) 5.) 22.2 § -vayeF ceartyspese bh gene ophiura, Asterias, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1152)............. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPHIURIDAE Miller & Troschel, 1840 (Opinion 1152)......... Orchelimum Audinet-Serville, 1838 (Opinion 1148)............ Orgyia Ochsenheimer, 1810 . ORGYINDAE Wallencren, U86)....... 550... eeigui ts. . ene paludosa, Tipula, Fabricius, 1794 (Opinion 1160)............. paludosa, Tipula, Meigen, 1830 (Opinion 1160) .............. papilio, Voluta, Link, 1807. . eS. 6 6, 6 Bays: owed s. 68. Se, w ete we Te eee PRPILIONUDAE Latresle,.1802],..... SEPT namie, Fh PPL Onine tetra TARO sk. we ee bee ers Peggichisme Kirkaldy, 1904. . Pelusios Wagler, 1830...... pensilvanica, Testudo, Gmelin, platei, Galaxias, Steindachner, Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818 . Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837. populi, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, Prodorylaimus Andrassy, 1959 Pseudocorymbites Fiori, 1898 Ptinella Motschulsky, 1884 . . erate ee dea ws 2 ba eo steve we Se ens a Me Sas 6 6 & SEP ones & Sra heve ea hie a peewee © L789 VAS) MUD AGAR SOseeiA. 1898'(Opinien 1153))2 oo). cA CRRGSAP DLS) tween) te 29 (OD, WORE LATS Ree DTDS « sno, cp peuumteties o BURG aD Cae LOSE IORI CAIOS RATES S RS IQA? & EARL GRC RPGR NIST A. SS punctata, Deilinia, Warren, 1894 * 0G.) bP. PS punctatus, Chilodus, Muller & Troschel, 1844 (Opinion 1150)..... quinquecincta; Scolia, Fabricius, 179320 0.......0. 202.2200. reticulata, Amphisbaena, C.P.Thunberg, 1787 (Opinion 1149)..... Rhinoclemmys Fitzinger, 1835 =e ee oa. Mey. wae Mee mal ee) et a ce Se 6 Ce @ rotunda, Thelphusa, Quoy & Gaimard, 1824................. ruficauda, Muscicapa, Swainson, 1838................+.+-. 7uyecauda Sipnia, Sharpe. VBI9 «2 < «cocci cucus «abe cpepeycasreiersiereus. > mannus, Cancers sannacus, 158). < . <2 ices 6 ccc che nus © os, « oye oo salmachus, Sphinx, Linnaeus, 1 oe ann” CPA ee epee ae SI A Saperda Fabricius, 1775 (Opmion- 1155)... 2... ke ee scalaris, Cerambyx, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1155)............ Schantungia Lorenz, 1906... ailove, 6 seat @ apap we ce aes ob fee ete yen « 3 BCTIPIG, TESINGG, SCHOCPITSN 19D) -c5 3 6 6 cle. 6 earn oo % one a we nas mneetiee, Crivenae Wire. FEISS . os oe sb at cw ec ew ee ewe Shantungia Walcott, 1905... eet el Ree eer vet ten) ie el et, enim ee Om ee Se) me aa ee sowerbensis, Delphinus, Blainville, 1817 .................-. BpeMrieri. hestugo. GMeln. VIS9 . 2s cess « ecene sie & etevara wise eos spinifera, Shantungia, Walcott, NOUS MPA. SSS SER, SER Ee spinigerPAtnous? Candez, T6605. OE SR RAS PO staphylaea, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 ..............+.-++2-% Sternothaerus Bell, 1826. ... Sternotherus Gray, 1825.... striata, Voluta, Gmelin, 1791, formerly striata, Murex, Gmelin (Direction 108)........ A nee 2 2 eo @ 0. © 6 6) oo 6 00 © aa) * eee Ge subcunctans, Tipula, Alexander, 1921 (Opinion 1160).......... subnigra, Testudo, Lacépede, 1 ve en | - eee cone 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature tephra,Dasychira; Hiibrier! [1809}s(2)-Ob24 .lodeueyy E Ata R BA texanus,. Gnathodus, Roundy 1926) ae): 8531 ..allneyaR-soaribeehe wns Tickogonia Rossmaessiers 1835, -..... : .- 2.2 202.000 GIS4.. sentient Tipula Linnaeuss1 758; (Opinion 1160) .. ........ 4a8! -newaalieW Az Tipulariae Latreille, [1802] (Opinion 1160)................. TIPULIDAE Latreille, [1802] (Opinion 1160)............... tipuliformis, Sphinx «Clerek, 1759)+ |. ecininO) OES! -soaiatt. alualt miian, Matthews. 1 85Secu.r, D560, - 2.222020 eh Obl dahl ae titan, Lrichopteryx, Newman, 1834)... ...£08!.).,sliientet JAGIe variegata, Terebra, Gray, 25 November 1834 (Opinion 1156) ..... Reniricosa. Bays, Grave Sash dt eedets LSI. a + oo ot Rl. melee verrucosa, Pleurocera, Rafinesque, 1820 ................-.- versicolor, Pterostichus, Stutm, 18240) 228} aatoaleintie ase viatica [sic] Sphex, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1157)............ viaticus, Sphex, Linnaeus, 1758 [as viatica] (Opinion 1157)...... viridis. Brunella, Searle. 91)... ..+.>+7he0vl seenteil skye vite, Litosoma, Skrijabin & Shikhobalova, 1945 (Opinion 1158). ... viteae, Litomosa, Krepkogorskaya, 1933 (Opinion 1158) ........ vitei, Litosoma, Sassuchin, Tiflow & Schulz, 1935 (Opinion 1158). . vulgare, Orchelimum, Harris, 1841 (Opinion 1148) ............ vulpina, Chrysomela, Fabricius, 1781 ... 2... 2.2.0.2 2 22 eee whitfieldi, Lingulops, Hall, 1872 (Opinion 1151).............. wite, Litomosa, Krepkogorskaya, 1933 (Opinion 1158) ......... witei, Litosoma, McIntosh & McIntosh, 1935 (Opinion 1158) ..... zebra, Antilope, Gray; 1838)... PBs Seine SB MN .. SAA 3 Yebratd, Antilope, RobentsU836. . . .. ues -BORMawe., SOO . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 CORRIGENDA Vol. 33: in list of Contents of Pts 3/4,line 11: for Coleoptera read Hymenoptera. page 155, line 4: for COLEOPTERA read HYMENOP— TERA. page VIII, line 24: for Coleoptera read Hymenoptera. Vol. 35: page 2, application (12): for F. Grime read F. Grine. Vol. 36: page 125, line 35: for ACHIDAE read ACHIIDAE. page 125, line 39: for ACHIDAE read ACHIIDAE. page 126, line 5S: for ACHIDAE read ACHIIDAE. page 127, line 34: for ACHIDAE read ACHIIDAE. page 128, line 9: for ACHIDAE read ACHIIDAE. page 128, line 38: for ACHIDAE read ACHIIDAE. page 128, line 45: for ACHIDAE read ACHIIDAE. Vol. 37: page 11: after title in Opinion 1147, and before (1) of the Ruling insert: ‘In the case of species of CHIRONOMIDAE estab- lished by Professor J.J.Kieffer from adults provided by Professor A. Thienemann .....” page 163, line 1: for INOQUE read INOUE. page 177, line 5: for Geoffrey read Geoffroy. PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED Part No. Contents of Part Date of Publication (pages) 1 1 — 64 8 May 1980 2 65 — 128 19 June 1980 3 129 — 192 25 September 1980 4 193 — 266 4 December 1980 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The present volume should be bound up as follows: 1 — 266, T.P. I-VI Note: The wrappers (covers) of the four parts should be bound in at the end of the volume. Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the main regular source of income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales of this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of dona- tions and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the Commission. © 1980 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD. ” ws es =~ Reacts ie as i aan are ee a set = “~